ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Chamber of Commerce”

Election

Chamber Of Commerce Is Spending Millions Supporting Candidates It Pledged To Defeat

By Josh Israel on Oct 25, 2012 at 5:09 pm

U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce — which spent nearly $33 million in 2010 to elect a Republican Congress — strongly backed the 2011 Budget Control Act which averted a national debt default and instituted automatic cuts that will go into effect unless Congress reduces federal spending. But while the Chamber’s CEO Tom Donohue reportedly warned Congressional Republicans at the time “we’ll get rid of you,” if they did not agree to a debt ceiling increase, the group has spent millions supporting Republicans who voted against the bipartisan agreement:

1. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO). The Chamber spent more than $692,000 on “independent expenditures” helping Akin in his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), with ads attacking both McCaskill and his primary opponent former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman (R). The group has not spent any money in support of Akin since his comments that victims of “legitimate rape” are unlikely to become pregnant. Akin explained his opposition to the deal, saying it “fails to address the problem at hand, and it threatens to severely degrade our national defense with a trillion dollars in cuts to our military.”

2. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY). The Chamber has spent at least $185,000 in “independent expenditures” attacking her opponent, former Rep. Dan Maffei (D), and praising Buerkle. The freshman Congresswoman explained her vote against the deal in a statement, saying “There were some good aspects to the bill, but this version also creates several new problems. At the end of the day, I was not satisfied that all my questions and concerns had been answered as to potential negative effects of this bill on the people in my district.”

3. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV). The Chamber spent more than $489,000 on “independent expenditures” helping Heller in his re-election bid against Rep. Shelley Berkley (D), with ads endorsing his re-election and attacking her record. Heller said he saw “no strategy” in the compromise and would have preferred a “big deal.”

4. Rep. Connie Mack IV (R-FL). The Chamber spent over $3.8 million on “independent expenditures” helping Mack in his challenge to Sen. Bill Nelson (D), with ads attacking Nelson and urging voters to defeat him. Mack said he didn’t think the American people wanted a deal or “gimmicks.”

5. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT). The Chamber has spent more than $1.3 million on “independent expenditures” helping Rehberg in his challenge to Sen. Jon Tester (D), with ads attacking Tester and encouraging voters to defeat him. Rehberg called the deal “little more than business as usual for Washington.”

The Chamber has also spent at least $3.3 million on “independent expenditures” helping Mitt Romney by attacking Barack Obama. While Obama signed the compromise, Romney said he “thought it was a mistake on the part of the White House to propose it” and “a mistake for Republicans to go along with it.”

Climate Progress

Chamber Of Commerce Refutes Its Own Attacks On Obama’s Energy Policy With A New Study

By Climate Guest Blogger on Oct 25, 2012 at 2:30 pm

by Greg Noth

A new study conducted by the energy consulting firm IHS CERA and sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council, and Natural Gas Supply Association finds the U.S. is on track to become the largest oil producer in the world.

Oil and other liquid carbon production is expected to reach 10.9 million barrels per day (bpd) this year, which is a 7 percent increase from last year. By next year, the Department of Energy projects the country will produce an average 11.4 million bpd — just below the 11.6 million bpd produced by the largest oil producer in the world, Saudi Arabia.

This study, which the Chamber happily endorsed, proves that attacks from the right against the Obama administration’s domestic energy policies — often led and funded by the Chamber of Commerce — are completely false. Indeed, production has increased every year of Obama’s presidency and this year is the largest single-year gain since 1951.

Compared to the last three years of President Bush, there have been 241 million more barrels of oil produced from public lands in the first three years of President Obama. Also, the number of oil drilling rigs have seen a 75 percent increase between 2009 and 2011.

Even though the Chamber acknowledges energy production is high, the organization and other oil-funded groups have spent millions this election cycle running attack ads, some repeating energy myths about the government limiting production. Its campaign narrative does not match reality.

Oil production is now higher than at any point since the mid 1990′s. Yet, despite these massive gains in production, gas prices have remained “stubbornly high.” This is because the global market determines prices, and factors outside U.S. borders control them — not presidents.

According to a recent analysis from the Congressional Budget office, the only way to truly protect consumers from price increases is to promote “policies that reduce the use of oil.” And that’s what we’ll need to do in order to address climate change as well.

The Chamber continues to attack Obama on energy. But the group is already getting the energy policy it wants, as this recent report it sponsored points out. Meanwhile, gas prices remain high and we continue on a path of uncontrolled carbon pollution.

Greg Noth is an intern with ThinkProgress.

NEWS FLASH

New York Attorney General To Investigate Chamber Of Commerce’s Lobbying Activities | New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has launched an investigation into the contributions of “tax-exempt groups that are heavily involved in political campaigns, focusing on a case involving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been one of the largest outside groups seeking to influence recent elections but is not required to disclose its donors,” the New York Times reports. Schneiderman is “seeking e-mails, bank records and other documents to determine whether the foundation illegally funneled $18 million to the chamber for political and lobbying activities.” The Chamber spent $66 million on lobbying in 2011 and has “pledged to spend at least $50 million on issue ads during the 2012 election cycle.” Recent reports have revealed that health insurers funneled at least $102.4 million through the Chamber in an effort to defeat Obamacare and undermine its implementation.

Justice

Corporate Interest Group Now The Most Victorious Litigant In The Supreme Court, Replacing The Justice Department

By Ian Millhiser on Jun 25, 2012 at 9:00 am

Normally, the federal government wins nearly seven out of ten cases it argues in the Supreme Court. This is true for a variety of reasons: the Solicitor General’s office includes some of the best and most experienced Supreme Court advocates in the country; many of the federal government’s cases are criminal cases, where the conservative justices typically favor the government; and longstanding precedent requires the justices to defer to the federal government’s views in certain kinds of cases. Perhaps most importantly, the justices have typically valued the Solicitor General’s opinion since the SG represents a co-equal branch of government that, unlike the judiciary, is lead by someone that is actually elected by the American people.

As Adam Winkler points out, however, the Roberts Court appears to care very little what the Obama Administration has to say:

Studies show that, in the past, the solicitor general wins most of his cases. When he is a party to a Supreme Court case, the solicitor general wins nearly 70 percent of the time. This term that number looks to flip. If the Court rules against Obama in the health care case and the other major decision yet to come down — on Arizona’s controversial immigration law — the federal government will have lost nearly 65 percent of its cases.

To date, the Court has ruled against the Obama administration in over half the cases in which the federal government was a named party. The justices rejected Obama’s positions in important cases dealing with GPS surveillance of vehicles; the scope of religious institutions’ exemption from employment discrimination law; the formatting of passports; and procedures under the Clean Water Act, among others. . . . This Court’s anti-Obama leanings even led to victories for Native American tribes, who over the course of American history have won precious few cases against the federal government.

A partial explanation for this shift could be that the justices have found a different team of elite lawyers they would rather take advice from — America’s top corporate lobbying group. So far this term, the Roberts Court sided with the United States Chamber of Commerce in every single one of the cases where the Chamber expressed a view. Moreover, the Chamber’s win rate for the duration of the Roberts Court closely matches the very high win rate once enjoyed by the Solicitor General. According to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber’s overall win rate before the Roberts Court is 68 percent, or 60 of 88 cases:

NEWS FLASH

Pro-GOP Outside Groups Outspending Key Senate Democratic Candidates And Allies By Three-To-One Margin | In yet another sign that the Supreme Court’s controversial 5-4 Citizens United ruling has tilted the playing field toward secretive groups and billionaire businessmen, a new Bloomberg analysis reveals Sen. Sherod Brown (D-OH) and Senate candidate Tim Kaine (D-VA) are being massively outspent by right-wing Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s. Right-wing political groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS have spent at least $8 million against Brown, compared to just $2.5 million on television advertising spent by the Democratic incumbent and allied groups. In Virginia, the Chamber of Commerce and others have so far outspent former Gov. Kaine and his allies by a $1.9 million to $385,000 margin.

NEWS FLASH

Chamber To Spend Over $50 Million On 2012 Elections | According to USA Today reporter Susan Page, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donahue announced this morning that his corporate lobbying group would spend even more than the $50 million previously reported to try to change the result of the 2012 election. The Chamber was one of the biggest exploiters of Citizens United during the 2010 cycle, and they recently filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to keep their ability to spend unlimited money influencing American elections intact.

Election

Pro-GOP Chamber Of Commerce Ad Extols Bipartisanship, Implies Obama Re-Election

By Josh Israel and Scott Keyes on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 pm

Former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI)

Former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI)

The Chamber of Commerce has released 21 new May 2012 “independent” political ads — 20 of which either attack Democrats or praise Republicans. But while most of the ads take partisan swipes at Democrats and Obamacare, the Chamber’s ads in solidly Democratic Hawaii improbably endorse bipartisanship.

The narration for the 30-second spot in support of former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI) reads:

Working together to create jobs will bring Hawaii’s economy back. That’s the independent record that Linda Lingle has built. Governor Lingle believes in a bipartisan plan for increasing tourism, working across the aisle with President Obama, finding solutions to boost our local economy for more opportunity. She understands tourism, will create jobs for Hawaii and our economy. Call Linda, tell her to keep supporting tourism and putting jobs above partisanship. Paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 100 years standing up for American enterprise.

Watch the ad:

Another ad from the Chamber — which has defended Mitt Romney and frequently attacked President Obama’s legislative agenda — hits a Democratic candidate in Florida over the mere possibility that she might support Obamacare.

But in the Aloha State, the group abruptly takes a pro-compromise position.

Amusingly, Republic Report noted, the on-screen citation for the claim that Lingle is a bipartisan leader is a newspaper reprinting of a press release from Lingle’s own campaign.

More subtle is an implied concession to President Obama’s home state that Lingle and the Chamber believe Obama will be re-elected. Lingle, if elected in November, would take office in January 2012 — meaning that for her “bipartisan plan” for “working across the aisle with President Obama” to really work, President Obama too would have to win this November.

Or perhaps they simply wanted to inform voters that Lingle would diligently seek bipartisan solutions with President Obama for the 16 days between when she took office and Mitt Romney’s possible inauguration — but in that case, she had better be prepared to move very quickly indeed.

Justice

Mitch McConnell & The Chamber of Commerce Tell The Supreme Court To Double Down On Citizens United

By Ian Millhiser on May 2, 2012 at 9:50 am

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a case that will enable it to correct its error in Citizens United and overrule its indefensible decision to allow unlimited corporate and other wealthy donor money to influence elections. Neither the corporate lobby nor the Senate’s top Republican are eager to see this occur, however. Both of them filed briefs in the Supreme Court yesterday urging the justices to not only reaffirm Citizens United, but to do so without even hearing argument in the case.

Neither one of these briefs are surprising. The Chamber is one of the nation’s biggest spenders on elections, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has long been an opponent of campaign finance regulation. Before President Bush appointed Justice Alito, who became the fifth vote to tear down much of America’s checks on big money in politics, the seminal case upholding America’s ability to defend against such money was McConnell v. FEC. In that case, Sen. McConnell was the lead plaintiff who sued — mostly unsuccessfully — to toss out the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law.

Yet while the briefs are unsurprising, they demonstrate both the corporate lobby and the Republican Party’s commitment to keeping wealthy interest groups’ ability to buy and sell elections intact.

Climate Progress

Pro-Oil Outside Groups Spend More Than $16 Million On Energy Attack Ads Since January

By Rebecca Leber on Apr 12, 2012 at 9:44 am

A handful of outside groups, fueled by oil and coal dollars, are committing tens of millions to propel Big Oil to the forefront of the 2012 elections — outspending the Obama campaign on political energy ads by an overwhelming amount.

In the first three-and-a-half months of 2012, groups including Americans for Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, Crossroads GPS, and American Energy Alliance have spent $16,750,000 on energy attack ads. The total amounts to more than $56 million, including the American Clean Coal Coalition’s pledge of $40 million on ads promoting coal.

According to a Think Progress analysis, there have been at least $16,750,000 worth in dirty energy ad buys since January:

American Petroleum Institute spent $4.3 million since January, reported by the Washington Post.

Crossroads GPS has spent a total $2.85 million since January, with three major ad buys. Crossroads spent $500,000 distorting the administration’s Solyndra record, $650,000 on gas prices, and $1.7 million promoting “drill, baby drill.”

American Energy Alliance bought $3.6 million of gas price ads for the “largest effort of its kind in AEA’s history.” The group is partially funded by Charles and David Koch.

Americans For Prosperity: $6 million on an ad distorting Obama’s Solyndra record, which ran in at least six states. This followed an earlier $2.4 million Solyndra ad in November, which was not included in the total count.

By comparison, the Obama campaign and his super PAC have spent at least $1.67 million defending the president’s energy record.

Other groups have pledged to spend millions more this election cycle, and will include ads focusing on promoting pro-oil and coal interests:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has committed to spend more than $50 million this year on a range of issues. So far it has targeted several lawmakers, including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who faced $2.5 million of ads against him for wanting to end oil subsidies. In February, it spent $200,000 ads promoting Rep. Rick Berg (R-ND) for his pro-oil stance.

American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity: $40 million overall campaign to push coal interests to the forefront of the presidential campaign.

American Crossroads, whose donors include oil and gas executives, has a bankroll of more than $200 milllion for 2012.

Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch “plan to pump at least $100 million through their network of independent groups” which include Americans for Prosperity and the American Energy Alliance.

Ad spending this cycle has skyrocketed 1600 percent compared to the 2008 race, partly due to oil and gas’s serious money to elect a candidate committed to putting oil’s profits first.

Climate Progress

American Petroleum Institute, Chevron Secretly Funded 2010 Attack Ads

By Rebecca Leber on Mar 30, 2012 at 4:05 pm

2010 outside spending from non-disclosing groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics

Chevron contributed $500,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute gave $25,500 to the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, both of which ran vicious right-wing attack ads in the 2010 midterm elections:

The American Petroleum Institute, which advocates for the oil and gas industry, gave $25,500 to Americans for Prosperity, IRS disclosures show. Americans for Prosperity, based in Arlington, Virginia, spent more than $1.2 million in 2010 to help elect Republicans to Congress, according to FEC records.

The petroleum institute also gave $25,000 to the Alexandria, Virginia-based 60 Plus Association, which favors privatizing Social Security and spent more than $7 million in 2010 in support of Republicans, IRS and FEC records show.

Of course, Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate in 2010, when spending from these groups favored Republicans 10-to-1.

Groups like Chevron have seen billions in returns for their 2010 contributions. Chevron’s profits jumped 23.3 percent since 2010, and the company earned $3 million every hour last year. However, the company only paid an effective 19 percent income tax in 2011. Exxon, the most profitable oil company, paid a lowly 13 percent.

In 2012, undisclosed donations will play an even larger role, since interest group spending is up 1600 percent from the 2008 cycle.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up