U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. the People

The news that the Obama administration will champion targeted assistance for small U.S. businesses is a welcome turn of events after decades of public policy that has routinely favored huge multi-national corporations over  the enterprising little guy.   It also provides an opportunity to focus on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the insidious way its operations have been redirected to serve the interests of the powerful few rather than those of the many.

What peaked my interest was an e-mail link to a story in the Colorado Independent, that was sent to me by my friend Perry Cooper.  It seems that the Aspen Chamber of Commerce has called-out the U.S. Chamber for

questioning of global warming science and other policies it’s adopted that are aimed at thwarting climate-change legislation.

I quickly discovered that the U.S Chamber has quite a reputation for such activities, as reported by Sourcewatch:


U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobbying group in the United States, “used to be a trade association that advocated in a bipartisan manner for narrowly tailored policies to benefit its members. Since 1997 or so, it has become a fully functional part of the partisan Republican machine,” with CEO and president Thomas J. Donohue “raising its budget to $150M a year from corporate chiefs satisfied with his ability to move policy through a Republican Congress,” Matt Stoller wrote December 13, 2006, at MyDD.

The Chamber claims on its website that its mission is to “advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility.” It describes itself as “the world’s largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.”

However, the Chamber is “dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries,” according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce.

As detailed in this Washington Post article,  the Chamber has also taken a highly activist role in frustrating the current efforts toward healthcare reform.

They have opposed legislation that would restrict imports from countries engaged in sweatshop labor practices and fought against the Employee Free Choice Act that would make it easier for labor to organize.   Trumpeting the virtues of “free trade” the Chamber has positioned itself against virtually every measure that would advance the cause of “fair trade” in U.S. and world enterprise. The end result is that there have recently been a number of defections from the U.S. Chamber in response to the sharp right turn that its activities have taken.  Most notable among those departures was Apple Computers which withdrew from the Chamber in protest over its position on legislation addressing climate change.

As small business owners ourselves, my husband and I recognize that implementing public policies like universal healthcare, workers’ rights, a living wage and clean environmental standards is the only way to ensure the survival of “free” enterprise and a stable economy.   By endorsing a profit-driven race to the bottom without regard for the human and environmental consequences, the U.S. Chamber and it’s mega-corporate handlers is courting future economic collapse.  Rather than the flawed model of “trickle-down” economics, it is full participation by all sectors of the U.S. population that will be the engine of long-term prosperity.  

About Sue Prent

Artist/Writer/Activist living in St. Albans, Vermont with my husband since 1983. I was born in Chicago; moved to Montreal in 1969; lived there and in Berlin, W. Germany until we finally settled in St. Albans.

6 thoughts on “U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. the People

  1. There are areas of the country where there is little to no work available.  Incentives to small business won’t help because they don’t have the business to justify hiring more people with or without incentives.

    If the Great United States’ free market system won’t supply the jobs, I believe the federal government should be the employer of last resort.  Everyone that wants to work should be able to.

    There is no shortage of worthwhile projects that can be undertaken that are labor intensive and would get folks to work until the “free market” was able to provide them better jobs.

    This needs to be done and it needs to be done soon.

    PJ

  2. but the more it gets stressed the better. I was watching Katie Couric tonight and she actually did a lengthy segment about “ClimateGate” giving the denialistas even more coverage and credit than the army of scientific organizations calling for action on climate change.

    With the age of information has come a tidal wave of new info but just as this new medium has cultivated public awareness, at the same time, there is reactionary misinformation that is of equal stature in the eyes of most of the MSM. I feel like its futile to push issues though the television news anymore. I say occupy, liberate, educate. This is getting to be beyond Orwellian…

  3. stop the parent but we can subvert it by persuading the children to rebel

    we’ve discussed this before

    the only thing we can do here is to remind local businesses that their money supports the U.S. Chamber (the local affiliates pay a fee to the parent)

    it is outrageous that we inadvertently fund these assholes by shopping at local stores (some of) whose owners are members of the local or state Chambers

    let’s encourage businesses to ask the Chamber to disassociate (and stop paying the fee); if the Chamber refuses, the business could give up its membership and join VT Businesses for Social Responsibility

    it’s appalling that the U.S. Chamber gets to say they “represent” 3 million businesses, especially since they’ve never asked those busineses if they support the absurd positions espoused by the national group  

  4. White House records showed that Chamber President Donohue met with administration officials 10 times during Obama’s first nine months .

    Mother Jones magazine describes them as Frienemies, reluctant and mutually suspicious collaborators .

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/20

Comments are closed.