The most important political story of the year

by: Mike Lux

Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 17:30


It's not the Tea Partiers, as fun as they are. It's not the debate over whether or not Christine O'Donnell is a witch. It's not even the passage of landmark legislation like health care and financial reform, with all their historic implications.

It's that with the Citizens United decision, the flood of multinational corporation money have been unleashed. And when I say multinational, I'm not even talking about American-based companies who sell goods and operate factories overseas, I'm talking about foreign corporations through and through.

Read the story below in its entirety, I am republishing it here to emphasize how big a deal this is. The Chamber of Commerce is raising money from foreign companies and using it to run attack ads here against Democratic candidates.

Mike Lux :: The most important political story of the year

In recent years, the Chamber has become very aggressive with its fundraising, opening offices abroad and helping to found foreign chapters (known as Business Councils or “AmChams”). While many of these foreign operations include American businesses with interests overseas, the Chamber has also spearheaded an effort to raise money from foreign corporations, including ones controlled by foreign governments. These foreign members of the Chamber send money either directly to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the foreign members fund their local Chamber, which in turn, transfers dues payments back to the Chamber’s H Street office in Washington DC. These funds are commingled to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account which is the vehicle for the attack ads:  


- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has created a large presence in the small, oil-rich country of Bahrain. In 2006, the Chamber created a local affiliate called the “U.S.-Bahrain Business Council” (USBBC), an organization to help businesses in Bahrain take advantage of the Chamber’s “network of government and business relationships in the US and worldwide.” As the USBBC’s bylaws state, it is not an actual separate entity, rather it is simply an office of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 501(c)(6) trade association. Many of the USBBC’s board members are Bahrainian, including Aluminum Bahrain, Gulf Air, Midal Cables, the Nass Group, Bahrain Maritime & Mercantile International, the Bahrain Petroleum Company (state-owned), Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company, and First Leasing Bank. With each of these foreign board members to the USBBC contributing at least $10,000 annually, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce raises well over $100,000 a year in money from foreign businesses through its operation in Bahrain. Notably, the membership form provided by the USBBC directs applicants to send or wire their money directly to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The membership form also explicitly states that the foreign-owned firms are welcomed.

- Like the Chamber’s involvement in Bahrain, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce operates in India through a group called “U.S.-India Business Council” (USIBC), which has offices around the world but is headquartered in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Dozens of Indian businesses, including some of India’s largest corporations like the State Bank of India (state-run) and ICICI Bank, are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce through the USIBC. Annual membership dues range from $7,500 to $15,000 or more, and the money is given directly into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) bank account. Like the USBBC, the USIBC generates well over $200,000 a year in dues for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from foreign businesses. On the USIBC website, many of the groups lobbying goals advocate changing American policy to help businesses in India. Under the manufacturing policy goal, USIBC boasts that it “can play a helpful role in guiding U.S. companies to India, while supporting various policy initiatives that will enhance India’s reputation as a major manufacturing and investment hub.”

- Many foreign “AmChams” or Business Councils operate outside the direct sphere of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce but nonetheless send dues money back to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. For instance, the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt is a separate entity based in Cairo that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars from both Egyptian firms and American businesses. However, the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt calls itself “the most active affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the” Middle East. Another foreign chamber, like the Abu Dhabi AmCham, which includes American firms and Esnaad, a subsidiary of the state-run Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, claims that it is a a “dues paying member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and part of the global network of American Chambers of Commerce.” In Russia, the relationship between the American Chamber of Commerce there and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce here is opaque. This might be because many of the dues-paying members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia are Russian state-run companies, like VTB Bank, and controlled by the Russian government. Asked by ThinkProgress if the Russian Chambers pay dues back to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ksenia Forsheneva, the membership development manager at the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, replied, “Unfortunately the information that you require is closed for the public.”


Previously, it has been reported that foreign firms like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens are active members of the Chamber. But on a larger scale, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appears to rely heavily on fundraising from firms all over the world, including China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, and many other places. Of course, because the Chamber successfully lobbied to kill campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency, the Chamber does not have to reveal any of the funding for its ad campaigns. Dues-paying members of the Chamber could potentially be sending additional funds this year to help air more attack ads against Democrats.


Here’s how it works. Regular dues from American firms to the Chamber can range from $500 to $300,000 or more, depending on their size and industry, and can be used for any purpose deemed necessary by Donohue and the Chamber leadership. For example, the health insurance giant Aetna has reported that it paid $100,000 in annual dues to the Chamber in the past. But for specific advocacy or advertising campaigns, corporations can hide behind the label of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and give additional money. Last year, alongside their regular dues, health insurance companies like Aetna secretly funneled up to $20 million to the Chamber for attack ads aimed at killing health reform (publicly, health insurance executives claimed they supported reform). Last week, Politico reported that News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, gave an extra $1 million to the Chamber for its election season attack campaign.

There are many reasons foreign corporations are seeking to defeat Democratic candidates this November. The Chamber has repeatedly sent out issue alerts attacking Democratic efforts to encourage businesses to hire locally rather than outsource to foreign counties. The Chamber has also bitterly fought Democrats for opposing unfettered free trade deals. To galvanize foreign businesses, the Chamber has commissioned former Ambassador Frank Lavin — who served as the McCain-Palin Asia campaign director and has appeared on television multiple times recently saying a Democratic Congress is bad for business — to speak before various foreign Chamber affiliates to talk about the stakes for the 2010 midterm elections.

Because campaign finance laws prohibit foreign entities from contributing to political races here in America, we asked the Chamber to defend the legality of its fundraising operation. We have yet to receive a response. But as word of our investigation began to leak out yesterday, the Chamber informed Politico’s Mike Allen that it is now “preparing a response.”

     

Update The US Chamber of Commerce has responded to this post in a statement to the Politico's Ben Smith. The Chamber's Tita Freeman did not dispute that the Chamber's 501(c)(6) organization running attack ads receives foreign funds, and simply claimed, "We have a system in place" to prevent foreign funding for the Chamber's "political activities."

Every single Democrat should be running ads based on this story. The Republicans have blocked any action to keep this foreign corporate money out of our elections, and if we allow this to stand we will be so awash in foreign money in our elections that we will never get our democracy back. Check this story out, and tell every Democrat you know: make this an issue. This is a very big deal, and Republicans should be made to answer why they are okay with foreign corporations being allowed to do attack ads in our elections.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This shouldn't just be about ads. This is about "foreign agents" influencing elections. (3.56 / 9)
And that is probably still illegal, at least on paper.

So why isn't Justice and State investigating the US Chamber for violations of the Registered Foreign Agents Act?

How is this even remotely legal? Given that money is fungible, the Chamber's response they are taking steps to keep the election money clean is ridiculous on it's face.

They're taking money from foreign agents for the purpose of influencing US elections. I'm sure the Justice Department is going to storm their offices with search warrants any second now, right?

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller


Why (4.00 / 3)
Why isn't this being investigated?  Probably because we have one of the most pro-business administrations possible running our government.

[ Parent ]
Hey Cyber, care to explain the Troll Rating? (0.00 / 0)


"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller

[ Parent ]
My question is (0.00 / 0)
how do we get this changed permanently and ASAP?  Do we need new laws, a constitutional amendment, or ???  This came about because of a Supreme Court decision right?

Constitutional amendment (0.00 / 0)
Really, a much more far reaching constitutional amendment than one overturning Citizens United is probably necessary.  

Make it explicitly allowable for Congress to make a law creating spending and fundraising limits, at minimum.  You still have problems with independent expenditures that I don't 100% know how you would circumvent without gutting the 1st amendment (and I agree that the status quo also guts the 1st).  


[ Parent ]
Yup, only with an constitutional ammendment... (4.00 / 1)
...will it be possible to overcome the "freedom of speech" issues. However, the big money interests will do all in their might to prevent such a supermajority from happening, so I don#t see how it can be done.

[ Parent ]
needed but not necessary (4.00 / 1)
We do need an amendment and we should go directly after Buckley. Or a change in the composition of the court such that precedent again matters.

But we need neither to conclude that foreign corporate funding is illegal. Citizens United, as I understand it, did not rule that foreign corporations were entitled to first amendment protections for political funding efforts. This means existing prohibitions stand. No expert, but that is the take I would use to start: Foreign corporate funding is illegal and dangerous. Then later, soon, we will try to make domestic corporate funding illegal. It is already dangerous.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


[ Parent ]
What about corps with 1% US ownership? (0.00 / 0)
Seems to me you don't see the critical point. Since US corps have first ammendment rights now, HOW can it be constitutional to deny these rights to those corps who are only partially owned by foreigners? They are  still incorporated in the US, and as long as only 1% of their owners are US citizen, their rights can't be infringed! How do you think can the Supremes work around that clear conclusion?

[ Parent ]
Oh, I see this (4.00 / 1)
That is the "crack" I refer to below. Again, I'm no expert, but this is my reasoning/fantasy strategizing:

1. Citizen's United did not lift the bar against foreign corporate contributions. Its most fervent advocates admit this.

2. Most corporations are now transnational in ownership, as you say.

Therefore

3. Until foreign corporate donations are explicitly permitted - and the court declined to rule explicitly on this matter - then corporations cannot legally contribute unless they can show some kind of profit stream firewall. Akin in a way to the abortion funding intermingling BS on the health care bill.

Leading to one of two results: Foreign corporate donations are made explicitly legal in a future court ruling, massively easing the challenge of organizing an amendment attacking corporate free speech directly (indeed, I think this would be enough to do what will otherwise prove extraordinarily difficult) OR imposing hopefully onerous documentary burdens on corporations wishing to make domestic political contributions while also providing a type of disincentive to globalize ownership (those without face no such burden).

I know it's a little out there, maybe a lot out there, but this is the crack I had in mind.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


[ Parent ]
Who Are These Rich Foreigners & How Is the Cash Being Used? (0.00 / 0)
I'm old enough to remember the heat President Clinton took for taking big bucks from some pretty shady characters.  I sure hope somebody is able to investivate who these people are and what they are getting for thier money.

Also, from a purely tactical standpoint -- is all this cashbeing spent on old tactics (i.e. 30 second TV ads) or are they doing some interesting things that our side should learn from?


How would anybody know? (0.00 / 0)
What should be done, tracking all the stockowners, searching for international powers holding considerable influence over the corporation's decisions? It's a task that is too huge to be accomplished. The idiotic Supreme Court decisions opened the box of Pandorra, and it has to be reversed. Fighting the symptoms won't help.

[ Parent ]
Link to original (4.00 / 1)
Mike, you forgot to provide a link to the original article at ThinkProgress.

Yes, (4.00 / 9)
this is the most important political story of the year. But it's a story behind the story. The bigger picture is that the third world is coming to America. Elections that are influenced from abroad, good jobs that are increasingly outsourced, education policies that promise opportunities that domestic industries no longer offer, selling off public sector assets to for-profit entities - these are the things that third world counties have experienced for generations. Welcome America, to the world community!

Yup, America tastes her own medicine now. (0.00 / 0)
But the rest of the world isn't amused. It's one thing to buy the election in a third world party, the consequences will still be rather small on a global scale. It's quite another dimension to influence the elections of a nuclear armed superpower. This is threatening the whole globe!

[ Parent ]
"influence the elections of a nuclear armed superpower" (4.00 / 1)
You mean, like what the corporate oligarchs of the world have been doing for decades in Pakistan?

[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
Good example. That's playing with fire.

[ Parent ]
can't wait for Democrats to start running on an anti-corporate platform (0.00 / 0)
eh, what's that?

oh.

oh.


Tell the Chamber of Commerce to stop (4.00 / 1)
using foreign funds. Public Campaign (Clean Money Elections) has an email campaign to write to the Chamber.

They won't listen. And it's quite useless. (4.00 / 2)
Firstly, the federal government should investigate and stop this nonsense! They have the power, and the chamber can't simply ignore the. But the administration stays mum.

And secondly, if it isn't the chamber of commerce, it will be another PAC. You can't investigate and stop them all. As long as the idiotic Citizen United order stands, this is a futile endeavor.


[ Parent ]
You're right that the Chamber isn't the real enemy (4.00 / 1)
But they deserve to get beat up on anyway.

Right now the US Chamber of Commerce is getting away with a truly extreme agenda because of the good will generated by local chambers.  I'm not saying that the answer is sending emails, but we shouldn't be afraid to make sure Americans know how bad the U.S. Chamber of Commerce really is.

http://twitter.com/DrewCourt


[ Parent ]
It strikes me (4.00 / 1)
that the problem is massive inequality, elections driven by big money tactics, and big money having an inordinate influence over our democracy. Americans were critical of this decision before the possibility of foreign influence was raised.  Unless you think the problem is the nationality of the rich people who buy elections, rather than that rich people can buy elections, I don't see the value of focusing on foreign influence.  That isn't to say there are no appropriate ways to regulate this, or even to make a political issue out of it, It just strikes me that making this the primary concern seriously misrepresents the problem.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

Not to have an argument about tactics... (4.00 / 4)
... but unless the law has been changed, it is flatly illegal for foreign entities to influence domestic elections. This doesn't conflict with what you're saying, of course, but it does create another issue. And this isn't just about rich people, it's about foreign governments and other entities or groups that are using the US Chamber to launder their money into our political system.

So that's not merely a political question. It's a legal question of a serious nature, so we're beyond a mere scandal on this. For example, since every single business in China has direct government involvement there, any funds that ended up in US Chamber's hands is violating long-standing law. It looks like this is precisely what the Chamber is doing.

The current administration, then, could act on this without any new legislation or political work. They could simply enforce the law and get their pound of flesh from the Chamber, doing some real damage to their ability to act in this way going forward and even perhaps put a few of them in jail.

Not a bad way to highlight this issue in a way that puts Citizen United in a whole new light, eh?

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller


[ Parent ]
Well, is it illegal? Or does the Supreme Court order trump the law? (0.00 / 0)
I suspect that essentially, the idiotic Citizen United decision made the law prohibiting foreign influence unconstitutional. An example easily shows that: Let's say, a stock corp is 75% US owned and 25% are held by the Chinese. That's a large enough share that China can influence the corp's decisions. Now, if that corp contributes to a PAC, can it legally be stopped? Not anymore since Citizen United, because it would be illegal to prevent the 75% US owners from excercising their "freedom of speech" rights! I am not a lawyer, but from this common sense logic, I'm afraid the Supreme idiots managed to ruin campaign finance law once and for all.

[ Parent ]
no, it didn't (0.00 / 0)
my understanding is that the decision did not reach to the portions of McCain-Feingold and other laws barring foreign corporate funding and interference in domestic elections. That obviously does not mean it won't occur, but the decision did not legalize it. I agree it is murky in any case given the transnational character of modern corporations, but this is think is actually a crack we can exploit.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?

[ Parent ]
My understanding is that McCain Feingold haven't been chelleged yet... (0.00 / 0)
...after the Supremes set the new standard! But vertainly a new round of attacks will start soon, by corporate interests trying to exploit the precendent and to push the limits even more towards big money ruling the US. The decision IS a precedent, and I don't see how the Supremes can avoid the logical conclusions if such cases come up. Do you think this court will draw an arbitrary limit somewhere, at 50% foreign owenrship or so? Who's gonna supervise that, really?

[ Parent ]
Citizens United is separate from the legal issue of Foreign Agents. (4.00 / 1)
In the US, agents of foreign companies and states can lobby congress, but they can't spend any money on campaigns/contributions, etc. They have to register with the govt as "Registered Foreign Agents" and as such they have to live within a strict regulatory environment.

This is completely separate from Citizens U and the failure of the DISCLOSE Act.

What the Chamber is doing, then, is running around the Foreign Agents law by acting as a money-laundering operation for foreign agents abroad. Under one set of law, they don't have to disclose their sources, but under the Foreign Agents Act, they have to register as such anyway and still abide by those requirements.

So the Chamber is looking to have it both ways and flout long-standing law as a result.

In the US, foreign entities, states or other agents do not have the right to participate in domestic politics, especially elections, anymore than I can come to Germany and run for office there.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller


[ Parent ]
As I wrote, the foreigners can easily circumvent the law... (0.00 / 0)
...by routing their moneys through companies incorporated in the US! And then the Citizen United decision gives them first ammendment rights. So, there may be a good case against the Chamber now, but that won't stop the flood.

[ Parent ]
Right, but my point isn't about stopping the flood... (0.00 / 0)
... as much as illustrating the problem so that people might start taking the issue more seriously.

This is an opening into doing that.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller


[ Parent ]
It's the inevitable outcome of the idiotic Supreme Court order. (4.00 / 2)
After all, EVERY stock corporation can be subject to strong international influence! And if corporations are allowed to excercise "free speech rights" by donating to political action funds, how to prevent this international influence? By creating a new, HUGE agency that tracks all the stock owners, and makes judgements on their degree of power within the corporation? It can't be done!

So, this really is an inevitable side effect of the crazy Citizen United decisions. Wasn't this brought to the attention of the court, or did they simply ignore this? The Supremes should find the courage to reverse their desastrous decision asap, or soon US campaigns will be funded by China!






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS