Friday, October 22, 2010

The Chamber Controversy Is Not About Foreign Money

It's about the endless domestic money given to the Chamber by corporations to fund campaigns to buy Congress.

As a nonprofit organization, the chamber need not disclose its donors in its public tax filings, and because it says no donations are earmarked for specific ads aimed at a candidate, it does not invoke federal elections rules requiring disclosure.

The annual tax returns that the chamber releases include a list of all donations over $5,000, including 21 in 2008 that each exceed $1 million, one of them for $15 million. However, the chamber omits the donors’ names.

But intriguing hints can be found in obscure places, like the corporate governance reports that some big companies have taken to posting on their Web sites, which show their donations to trade associations. Also, the tax filings of corporate foundations must publicly list their donations to other foundations, including one run by the chamber.

These records show that while the chamber boasts of representing more than three million businesses, and having approximately 300,000 members, nearly half of its $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 donors. Many of those large donations coincided with lobbying or political campaigns that potentially affected the donors.

Dow Chemical, for example, sent $1.7 million to the chamber in the past year to cover not only its annual membership dues, but also to support lobbying and legal campaigns. Those included one against legislation requiring stronger measures to protect chemical plants from attack.

A Dow spokesman would not discuss the reasons for the large donation, other than to say it supports the chamber’s work.

Prudential Financial’s $2 million donation last year coincided with a chamber lobbying effort against elements of the financial regulation bill in Congress. A spokesman for Prudential, which opposed certain proposed restrictions on the use of financial instruments known as derivatives, said the donation was not earmarked for a specific issue.

But he acknowledged that most of the money was used by the chamber to lobby Congress. 

The best Congress money can buy, folks.  That's the US Chamber's true goal.  Nearly all of it is being spent on lobbying corporate-friendly types, or to just replace the ones that aren't.  That's how campaign dollars work in 2010.  They spend millions on Congress so they don't have to spend hundreds of millions making their products safer, or paying their workers more, or providing better benefits, or cleaning up their toxic messes, or any of that.

They can spend the greater balance on themselves and their executives.  Great deal if you ask me.  Ask the banks.

5 comments:

  1. How much of that money went to Obama in 2008? Does anyone really believe the bullshit about "millions of small donations" which happened to all be anonymous?

    But the big anonymous corporate donors certainly got their billions in bailout and stimulus cash in return, didn't they?

    Where's Obama's transparency on his donations? Oh that's right, you're so far up his ass you can't see anything else.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where's Obama's transparency on his donations?

    Are you alleging that Obama's presidential campaign did not file reports with the FEC?

    That those reports have not been downloaded by organizations such as Open Secrets, that allows you to slice and dice the information in about a million different ways?

    Are you retarded?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Indeed, I thought Obama's donations were gone over again and again by Republicans looking for donations from "terrorists" (anyone to the left of Brit Hume).

    ReplyDelete
  4. But... but... BILL AYERS! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does anyone really believe the bullshit about "millions of small donations" which happened to all be anonymous?

    wow. the mind boggles.

    ReplyDelete