The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has become a behemoth of political influence, making high-powered and well-funded attempts to reshape policies to fit its agenda. Thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and its trade association designation, the Chamber can leverage significant funds from its 501(c)(6) account — which includes donations solicited from foreign corporations — in campaign attacks against Democrats without ever having to disclose its donors. Despite significant scrutiny and criticism, the Chamber refuses to disclose how dues and other contributions are being spent.

But not all of the Chamber’s members are happy about its opaque political activities. Last week, a coalition of 275 institutional shareholders with $100 billion in assets under management from the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) sent a letter to company directors who are members of the Chamber to express deep concern over the Chamber’s “extremely antagonistic position” on the Affordable Care Act. Concerned that the Chamber’s pursuit of an anti-health care agenda — especially with the possible use of “foreign monies” — may damage their reputation, these investors are demanding the Chamber reveal whether company dues are being used in this “ill-conceived strategy,” and that company directors withhold all dues or withdraw membership “until the Chamber refrains from further investment in negative advertising”:

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and its members…are writing to express our profound concerns about our company’s potential role in furthering the highly politicized agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the 2010 mid-term election and the Chamber’s continued hostile opposition to health care reform. [...]

The Chamber’s punitive campaign, a veritable “hit list” of health care supporters, is counter-productive and explicitly partisan. … As [our company]‘s board representative to the Chamber, it is vitally important to ensure that the company is not seen to be the unwitting supporter of this initiative. We strongly believe that the media attention this issue has generated, particularly surrounding allegations of the co-mingling of foreign monies, poses significant risk to our company’s reputation. Further, we fully expect that you will use your influence to encourage other Chamber members to abandon this ill-conceived strategy.

As concerned shareholders, many of us working in the health care industry, we ask that you take steps to eliminate any risks associated with this issue, and make available all information regarding the use of our membership dues to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for review no later than October 30th. Further, as we believe that dues to the Chamber support the infrastructure which coordinates this campaign, we request that you publicly declare your opposition by either withholding your dues until the Chamber refrains from further investment in negative advertising, or if necessary, withdraw your membership in protest.

This is the ICCR’s second appeal to Chamber members on health care reform. In November 2009, ICCR members “called on Chamber members with stated positions similar to ICCR’s Health Care Reform principles to challenge the Chamber’s lobbying efforts against the passage of health care legislation.”

While the ICCR issues final warnings, Chamber members like Apple have left the Chamber altogether. In a newly-released comprehensive investigative series, Harry Hanbury and GRITtv reveal the ubiquitous role the Chamber plays in American politics and why companies may blanche at its secretive activities.

Watch it:

As I’ve been documenting, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have set their sights on weakening some of the key provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. One of these is the Volcker rule — named after former Federal Reserve Chairman and current Obama administration adviser Paul Volcker — which is aimed at preventing banks from trading for their own benefit with federally insured funds.

Banks are already thumbing their nose at the Volcker rule and laying the groundwork for a return to risky trading; they’re taking advantage of Dodd-Frank’s infancy, going on new adventures as regulators work out what, exactly, the Volcker rule should outlaw. And the banks are betting that the GOP will push regulators into making exceedingly narrow, so that risky (but profitable) trading can go on unabated.

But Volcker is pushing back, telling regulators to leave the rule more open, thus allowing them to crack down on a potentially wider range of activities:

His suggestion: Bar banks from trading with their own funds if they benefit from any type of government guarantee, such as deposit insurance, these people said. Banks would have to police their own activities to make sure they are in compliance, with Federal Reserve examiners ensuring that is the case…Mr. Volcker’s concern, according to several people familiar with the matter, is that narrow or prescriptive rules would invite gamesmanship on the part of banks and could allow firms to evade the rule’s intent. Already, some banks and their lobbyists are seeking to sway regulators and encourage them to narrowly define certain types of trading activities.

Volcker is not alone in his attempt to push regulators into a more inclusive rule. A group of Senators led by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) — who was one of the Volcker rule’s biggest advocates during the financial reform debate — penned a letter to regulators stating that Congress “provided you with a clear mandate and broad authority to act. The American people are now relying upon you to fully carry out the law.” “Congress voted for change and we need the regulators to move forward with change. They shouldn’t be giving away the ranch so we get back in this situation again,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), one of the letter’s signers.

Volcker was reportedly disappointed in the final version of his rule, after exemptions were added to it in an attempt to win Republican votes for Dodd-Frank, so it’s not surprising that he’d go to bat to prevent even more backsliding. And that he has to wrangle with the regulators at all is symbolic of both the promise and potential pitfalls in Dodd-Frank: depending on how the regulators craft the rules, the law could be extremely effective or simply window-dressing.

During a debate last night, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was asked what he would cut from the budget in order to offset the expense of extending the Bush tax cuts. Remember, a full extension would cost more than $4 trillion over ten years, while extending the cuts for just the richest two percent of Americans costs $830 billion. Rather than lay out where he would make cuts, Vitter rejected the premise of the question, scoffing at the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for:

VITTER: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise that in order to keep tax rates where they are and not increase taxes, somehow we need to pay for that. I think that’s Washington-speak, not Louisiana-speak. [...]

Q: It’s a misnomer to say this continuing, for the top rates, wouldn’t have to be paid for. You would have to pay that $750 billion because it was supposed to sunset. It’s not an increase, it’s a sunset.

VITTER: Just to be clear, the premise that I disagree with is that to avoid a tax increase, we somehow have to pay for it. It’s not the government’s money, it’s our money. That’s the point.

Watch it:

Vitter did eventually endorse some spending cuts — including rescinding unspent stimulus money, which would have the practical effect of raising taxes on the middle class — but they wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of just extending the tax cuts for the richest two percent. And it’s his complete dismissal of the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for that merits attention.

Under current law, which stipulates that the Bush tax cuts expire, the government will collect 21 percent of GDP in revenue in 2020. Extending the cuts means less revenue for the government (21 percent of GDP minus the cuts) and a larger deficit. That’s not “Washington-speak,” it’s basic budgeting. For what it’s worth, the last time that the budget was balanced, the government brought in 20 percent of GDP in revenue.

But Vitter is hardly alone in his position. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in August, “you’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, pay for?” “Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), when asked if Republicans planned to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich. “It’s not a cost. That’s where we are today. That’s the baseline. It doesn’t score anything to continue them,” insisted Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).

So the next time Vitter fearmongers about the “grab-bag of deficit spending” that he sees in Washington, it’s worth remembering that he doesn’t consider tax cuts — one of the main drivers of the deficit — to be part of the equation.

Connecticut’s Republican Senate nominee Linda McMahon has been all over the place when it comes to the the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which bears the name of the senator she’s hoping to replace. “Linda supports financial reform,” her spokesman Ed Patru has said. “She believes the goals of this particular legislation are laudable and certain aspects of it are reasonable.” However, she said that she would have ultimately vote against Dodd-Frank, because “I think that this bill grows government more than it does anything else.”

McMahon has been particularly critical of attempts to place new restrictions on the risky practices of Wall Street, telling Connecticut Plus that “we have a fair amount of regulation in place now.” And during a campaign stop at Fairfield University yesterday, McMahon said that the government actually needs to roll back bank regulations, giving them freer rein:

McMahon said the government needs to “dial back” regulations on banks because the amount of money they need to have in reserve to loan out money was high enough to prevent them from loaning to people with good credit histories. “We have to really get people working in the private sector. It’s why I think it’s very important to send more business people and fewer career politicians to Washington,” McMahon said.

Businesses large and small are having trouble accessing loans because the economy is weak and banks are holding money against a variety of losses they feel might be coming their way. Lifting regulations is not going to suddenly make them feel that economic conditions merit making loans, but it would certainly free them up to go back to making risky bets and building the junk financial products that led to the economic meltdown in the first place.

But McMahon is hardly alone amongst Republican Senate candidates in wanting to do away with restrictions on the nation’s financial industry. In fact, Washington’s Republican Senate nominee Dino Rossi has explicitly called for repealing the entire Dodd-Frank law.

In addition, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have made it quite clear that they intend to take a hatchet to Dodd-Frank, and at the very least bury regulators who are attempting to implement it under a barrage of paperwork and hearing appearances. In the meantime, Wall Street banks are already back to their old tricks, engaging in risky trading and searching for loopholes to exploit.