[corp-focus] The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Wonderland

[Robert Weissman]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Wonderland
By Robert Weissman
May 9, 2011

It's a good rule of thumb: If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- the trade ass=
ociation for large corporations -- is whipped up about something, there's p=
robably good reason for the public to strongly back whatever has sent the C=
hamber into fits.

Well, the Chamber is apoplectic over a modest Obama administration proposed=
 executive order that would require government contractors to reveal all of=
 their campaign-related spending.

This is a case where the rule of thumb works. The proposed executive order =
would provide important information about campaign spending by large corpor=
ations, and work to reduce the likelihood that contracts are provided as pa=
yback for campaign expenditures. You can urge the administration to stand u=
p to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by signing the petition here: <www.citize=
n.org/disclosure-petition>.

The U.S. Chamber is of course no stranger to using exaggerated rhetoric to =
advance its positions. But its opposition to the Executive Order is astound=
ing even by the standards of the Chamber.=20

A driving purpose of the Executive Order is to prevent corruption; the phen=
omenon of campaign contributors being given preferential access for contrac=
ting is so widely acknowledged that it has a slang name: "pay-to-play." In =
a spell-binding bit of Alice-in-Wonderland logic, the Chamber is arguing th=
at the Executive Order will actually enable pay-to-play abuses!

An email action alert from the Friends of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rais=
es the specter of "your tax dollars only going to those companies or contra=
ctors that have contributed to a particular political party," asking, "Soun=
ds like pay-to-play, right?"

It certainly does!

Why does the Chamber make this point? Because it then goes on to argue "tha=
t's exactly what could happen if the White House, as expected, issues a new=
 Executive Order (EO) requiring American employers seeking federal governme=
nt contracts to disclose their political contributions in excess of $5,000.=
"

And thus does Alice fall down the rabbit hole.

The best way to prevent pay-to-play abuses is simply to ban campaign spendi=
ng by government contractors. But short of that, disclosing campaign expend=
itures -- as the Obama executive order would mandate -- is the best way pos=
sible to limit the potential for abuse. Disclosure of government contactors=
' campaign spending will help shine a light on the contracting process and =
diminish the likelihood of abuse and waste of taxpayer monies.

The Chamber attempts to argue that if the government knows which companies =
are making political expenditures, the administration in power will reward =
those it likes and punish those it doesn't. Here's the problem with that lo=
gic: The government already knows. Company political action committees must=
 disclose their spending. Direct contributions by company executives and em=
ployees are already disclosed.=20

What is not disclosed publicly are the secret contributions that corporatio=
ns funnel through trade associations and front groups to influence election=
s. Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Ele=
ction Commission, more than $130 million in secret money was spent in the 2=
010 election, and that figure is certain to skyrocket in 2012. These secret=
 donations are expenditures that corporations can use to extract special ac=
cess and consideration -- without even the check of the public knowing abou=
t the corporations' leverage.

What is an example of a trade association that funnels such corporate money=
, you might ask.=20

Why, the number one example is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Is it just possible that this helps explain the vociferousness of the Chamb=
er's objection?

(Hint: yes.)

Now, the U.S. Chamber rolls out some other complaints about the President's=
 draft executive order. It would only apply to corporations, but not "big l=
abor unions," grumbles the action alert from Friends of the U.S. Chamber. A=
ctually, the executive order will apply to unions, in cases where they may =
be government contractors. But more to the point: There was legislation con=
sidered last year that would have required disclosure of all union contribu=
tions to groups making campaign-related expenditures, the DISCLOSE Act. Tha=
t legislation was defeated by a single vote in the Senate ... thanks to the=
 opposition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its allies in the Republica=
n Party.

"With America facing a severe budget crisis, your tax dollars should be clo=
sely protected," states the Friends of the U.S. Chamber action alert. "As s=
uch, government contracts should be awarded based on qualifications and cos=
t -- just as they are in the private sector."

Exactly right.

Except that the Chamber draws exactly the wrong conclusion. To protect our =
tax dollars, we need -- at a bare minimum -- openness and disclosure of con=
tractors' campaign spending. We can't afford and should not tolerate secret=
 spending accounts that invite government contracting corruption.=20

Urge the President to stand up to the Chamber today:  <www.citizen.org/disc=
losure-petition>.


Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen, <www.citizen.org>.

(c) Robert Weissman

This article is posted at: <http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus=
/2011/000342.html>.