Menu

Drop The Chamber

Then vs Now: Corporate Criticisms of Climate Disclosures are Old News

, 0

Written and Submitted by Carly Fabian

Corporations have been making bogeymen out of disclosure requirements for 88 years. The sky hasn’t fallen yet.

In 1934, Joe Kennedy, the first chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), defended the new agency in a speech to the Boston Chamber of Commerce. Speaking to the group that had fought tooth and nail against the creation of the SEC, Kennedy reminded the Chamber that industry had a habit of exaggerating the harm of regulation and disclosure requirements: banks had once claimed the Federal Reserve would “destroy”
banking, and railroad tycoons had once claimed that the Interstate Commerce Act would turn railroads into “streaks of rust.”

American corporations and their trade groups need a similar reminder today.

The SEC’s recent proposed rule on climate-related disclosures is an obvious move given the significance of climate-related developments to individual firms and whole markets. Yet, critics have wasted no time in describing the rule as an unconstitutional part of the agenda to “destroy the extractive industries.”

If these criticisms sound both hyperbolic and familiar, it’s because we’ve heard them before. While trade groups like the Chamber of Commerce justify their criticisms by claiming the SEC is deviating from its mission, hyperbolic criticisms of financial disclosure requirements are older than the SEC itself.

When national disclosure requirements were first proposed in 1933 and 1934 after the 1929 stock exchange crash, the proposed requirements were met with opposition from what was described at the time as one of the largest lobby groups in history.

In response to the proposed regulations, the president of the New York Stock Exchange, Richard Whitney, rapidly organized a coalition of corporations to oppose what became the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Despite the stock market crash wiping out billions of dollars and triggering the Great Depression, Whitney’s coalition didn’t hesitate to deflect the blame, claiming that it was proposed disclosure requirements, not reckless Wall Street gambling, that would “destroy” the American economy.(1)

The main players and their criticisms feel familiar today: the Chamber of Commerce claimed the SEC would require a company to “sign away its constitutional rights.” Mining companies claimed it would kill jobs.(2) Oil and petrochemical companies claimed it would produce expensive and useless information for investors.(3)

And the opposition didn’t hold back on hyperbole: banks warned that “nowhere else in the world, nor at any time, has there ever been an attempt made to impose so great a hazard on the conduct of business.”(4) Republicans claimed that the move was designed to “Russianize” industry. “Lenin and Trotsky,” they claimed, “never envisioned such far-reaching possibilities for strangulation.”(5)

Thankfully, these criticisms, some of which could be copied word for word from a modern U.S. Chamber of Commerce press release, were not enough to dissuade FDR and other New Deal advocates for financial regulation. The SEC is now considered essential to the function of capital markets, and even its harshest early critics describe it as the “global gold standard” for financial regulation.

As Public Citizen highlighted in a previous report, this process has repeated itself time and time again. After the collapse of Enron and Worldcom in the early 2000s, the President of the Chamber of Commerce at the time, Tom Donahue claimed that disclosure requirements proposed in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act would “hand American corporations back to the trial lawyers for summary execution.” A few years later, when Donohue was asked about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act he said “Fair enough. A lot of it was well worth doing.”(6)

As criticisms of climate disclosure requirements continue to emerge, grand claims about the SEC’s overreach should be put in the context of 88 years of extreme claims from corporate opponents of sound market rules.

While some companies may be nervous about the prospect of providing climate disclosures, they are increasingly becoming the norm. More than 2,000 companies reviewed by the SEC already disclose some climate-related information, including around 90% of companies in the S&P 500. Moreover, more than 600 of the world’s largest publicly traded companies have made commitments to reach net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, suggesting that these companies are committing to, at the very least, internally measure their GHG emissions.

Both the proliferation of voluntary climate disclosures and the lessons learned from past disclosure fights suggest that the climate disclosure requirements that are decried as “destructive” today will come to be seen by most of the industry as obvious and necessary tomorrow.

The most strident critics of the SEC climate rule—fossil fuel companies—are exceptions to this rule.

Republicans have warned that if fossil fuel companies are forced to disclose their emissions and climate-related risks, the disclosures will steer capital away from the fossil fuel industry.

If past disclosure fights are any indication, those who doth protest too much may have something to hide: Richard Whitney, the leading opponent of the Securities Exchange Act, turned out to be a financial fraudster and was later convicted of embezzlement. The fossil fuel industry, which has lied for decades to stave off regulatory responses to its lethal business, might be equally right to fear the disinfectant powers of sunlight.

If fossil fuel companies are worried, they should make sure that their supposed climate commitments are reflected internally—and remember the warning of the first SEC Chair: “The Commission will destroy nothing in our business life that is worth preserving.”

The Chamber’s Anti-Union Advocacy Strikes Again

, , 0

While in 2022 there’s never a lack of news to follow and absorb, we at Public Citizen are always keeping a watchful eye on the actions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. After all, this mainstay corporate advocacy organization has long since made itself an enemy to most progressive ideals, causes, and issues. But what’s the latest target of their toxic advocacy?

The increased ability of workers to form a union.

Recently, President Biden’s appointed General Counsel of the NLRB, Jennifer Abruzzo, submitted a legal brief requesting that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) restore prior precedent and reimplement the Joy Silk Doctrine when making their decisions on labor union bargaining enforcement, triggering the ire of the consistently employer biased U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Given the improvement to workers’ lives and morale increased unionization could bring, it’s no surprise that the U.S. Chamber came out so strongly against it, declaring that “we will oppose this action with every tool a tour disposal, including litigation if needed”.

But let’s slow down. Joy Silk what?

 

Put simply, the Joy Silk Doctrine mandates that the NLRB order employers to negotiate and recognize unions if they do not possess a good faith doubt that they possess a majority. If no good faith doubt is present, employers would be subject to punishment for unfair labor practices as a matter of law. The burden of proof would now be on the employer to prove to the Labor Board their rationale for the union’s lack of majority status.  By returning to this prior precedent, unions would be able to be recognized based on signed cards expressing majority worker support, bypassing the oft times destructive union election process.

Our introduction to the Joy Silk Doctrine takes us all the way back to the charmed year of 1949 with the National Labor Relations Board case. All of this should sound glaringly familiar, as companies around the country regularly use “requests for elections” simply to create colossal corporate campaigns to whittle down union support. In fact, a 2019 study by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that employers are charged with violating federal labor laws in over 40% of all union election campaigns. Not exactly a fair fight.

For a timely example, look no further than the consistent anti-union activities of Amazon. Being one of the largest employers in the country, a successful unionization at Amazon would be a galvanizing effort for workers’ rights everywhere. And last year, in Bessemer, Alabama, their anti-union methods came out in full force, conducting improper surveillance, mounting a multi- million-dollar anti-union campaign, and even going as far as changing traffic signals to make it harder for labor organizers to interact with the Amazon workers. So even though the recent union victory last month in New York despite these harmful tactics is nothing to sneeze at, wouldn’t it be better if there was a way to bypass this whole process in the first place?

We at Public Citizen think so. Public Citizen continue to monitor the Chamber’s actions, and push for both the re adoption of the Joy Silk Doctrine. The power balance between workers and employers has been woefully unequal for far too long.

 

 

The Chamber of Commerce’s Predictable Answer: Blame the Workers

0

Sometimes the answer to our society’s biggest questions shouldn’t be so complicated. And, as we come together as a nation to rebuild after the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s been far too easy to observe instances of what feels like our nation’s leaders overthinking and scheming about the best way forward in forming and creating an economy and job market that works for everybody when the right path of action is staring us in the face: pay workers a living wage.

Which brings us to our dismal current state of affairs. This past April, the Department of Labor released a less than stellar monthly job report, kicking off a slew of regressive rhetoric around what needs to be done to stimulate the economy and overly optimistic views on the progress we’ve made toward rebounding from one of the most devastating crises of our nation’s history. And while May’s job report metrics were slightly more rosy, we still have so much work to do on the road to recovery.

But sadly, we aren’t all on the same page in the push for progress. True to its standard anti-worker playbook, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce responded to underwhelming job reports by making drastic demands on Congress to end the $300 additional unemployment benefit that Americans have been getting as part of COVID-19 relief packages.

In calling for this change, the unabashedly pro-business lobbying organization foolishly argues that because Americans are getting this additional $300, they are choosing to stay at home rather than enter back into the workforce. While most would understand that no one wants to be unemployed; people want to participate in society and earn wages, the Chamber even goes as far as to support its claim by pushing skewed data showing 1 in 4 recipients of the benefits actually take home more money in unemployment than they earned while working based on the minimum wages of their areas.  What’s even worse? Some Republican-led states around the country seem to be following the Chamber’s austerity advice as half of them decided to opt out of federal supplemental unemployment programs. Recent reports estimate that this would cut nearly $5 billion  in aid that serves as a crucial lifeline for so many Americans in those states.

Certainly, reading the last two employment reports shouldn’t spark a push to cut unemployment benefits, but instead should be the very rallying cry our nation needs to actually increase the benefits of being employed itself (hint: raising wages would be a great start). So while yes, data may show that the $300 in addition to unemployment benefits is more than the minimum wage in a handful of states, forcing people to go back to work poverty wages  is not only the illogical solution to the nation’s economic woes, but the immoral one. Nor should we accept the Chamber’s harsh calculus that comparing unemployment benefit totals to minimum wage is  a sufficient analysis of the economic status of the American worker, especially since the “minimum wage” itself (and in most states as well) is far from a living wage.

Should workers themselves really be blamed for any semblance of a worker shortage when so many have had to endure the nation’s decent wage shortage?

Absolutely not. What our nation’s workers need now is not bullying. It’s not shaming. Its empowerment. The exact thing the U.S. Chamber has popularly advocated against—such as through its opposition to the PRO Act, which strengthens the ability of workers to join unions, and its consistent stance against the raising of our federal minimum wage. So next time you see corporate PR statements about how much companies care about their workers, don’t forget that so many of these very same companies donate to the anti-worker U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The hypocrisy shouldn’t stand.

This is especially true during an ongoing pandemic in a country that hasn’t seen a substantial minimum wage increase in decades, with employment opportunities littered with poor benefits packages and taxing work conditions, we should only really come to one logical conclusion:

The workers aren’t the problem, it’s the jobs.

Corporate America must rethink its love affair with the Chamber and end its blockade of pro-worker reforms that will ensure we regrow our economy in a sustainable way that doesn’t leave anyone behind.

pexels-blaz-erzetic-2628105

IBM’s Very Simple Problem

0

The United States Chamber of Commerce has consistently advocated against the best interests of the American people, serving the profit motives of fossil fuel companies at the expense of the future health of our planet.

But it couldn’t do this alone. The U.S. Chamber gains its lobbying power through the use of ample donations from corporations across country. The Chamber Watch blog series, Chamber Climate Conflicts, surveys how specific corporations’ continued support of the oil and gas lobbying U.S. Chamber of Commerce directly contradicts these companies’ own messaging on the importance of reducing pollution, “going green,” and continued care for the planet.

This Installment: IBM  

Continuing our trend of highlighting when corporations’ climate messaging is clearly disconnected from their donation activities, we look no further than the technology company IBM. Founded in 1911, IBM has become a mainstay in American commerce and has been responsible for inventing universally recognizable items like the floppy disk, the UPC barcode, and even automated teller machines (ATMs).

But while these innovations show that IBM’s research and development is seemingly done with an eye to the future, its continued relationship with the oil and gas lobbying U.S. Chamber of Commerce displays not only blatant inconsistencies with the company’s own climate-related messaging, but also a clear lack of foresight.

It’s easy to assess that IBM at least wants us to view it as a company that cares about the future of our climate. On February 17th, IBM made itself known as 1 of the 53 companies to join together on The Climate Pledge, a cross-sector public vow to work together to reduce carbon emissions. And while all members involved in the pledge committed to net-zero carbon emissions by 2040, IBM has recently gone even further by setting the goal of net-zero emissions by 2030. Additionally, past its latest public assertions, IBM has both launched a global research initiative called the Future of Climate and is one of the inaugural members of the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium.

IBM’s continued relationship with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is even more discouraging considering just how long IBM’s public facing climate advocacy has been taking place. Just last summer, IBM celebrated the publishing of its 30th annual corporate environmental report, where it joined other posts on its website that pats itself on the back for the company’s 2007 position that climate change is “a serious concern that warrants meaningful action on a global basis” and self-congratulating posts showing its continued support of the Paris Climate Agreement. IBM even produced a video highlighting its 30 years of environmental leadership.

But quick question:

How does donating to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fit in to being an environmental leader?

We at Chamber Watch have repeatedly covered the levels to which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has gone to work against the interests of our climate and future generations. Even now the Chamber is hard at work actively fighting to hinder the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) push for disclosure of climate risks. And can someone please tell IBM that donating to an organization that fights to protect environmentally harmful projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline isn’t exactly the company an “environmental leader” should keep?

And while IBM prides itself in excelling at designing tech innovations and building machines to process complex computations it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that continuing to donate to the oil and gas lobbying U.S Chamber of Commerce doesn’t add up.

Sometimes the right answer is the simple one: it’s time for IBM to divide from the Chamber.

fed ex

The One Thing FedEx Really Needs to Lose

, 0

The United States Chamber of Commerce has consistently advocated against the best interests of the American people, serving the profit motives of fossil fuel companies at the expense of the future health of our planet.

But it couldn’t do this alone. The U.S. Chamber gains its lobbying power through the use of ample donations from corporations across country. The Chamber Watch blog series, Chamber Climate Conflicts, surveys how specific corporations’ continued support of the oil and gas lobbying U.S. Chamber of Commerce directly contradicts these companies’ own messaging on the importance of environmental protection, “going green”, and continued care for the planet.

This Installment: FedEx

Well known for its overnight shipping services, FedEx has been delivering packages all across the world for more than 50 years. While FedEx is well known for its speed, there is one action that it has been particularly slow to take: fully joining the fight to keep the planet livable for humanity and ending its financial relationship with the fossil fuel lobbying U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

On the one hand, the company’s many actions certainly show that it wants us to think it cares about climate. Reflecting the company’s outward substantiality strategy of “Reduce, Replace, Revolutionize”, FedEx recently announced that it was investing more than $2 billion to achieve the goal of being carbon neutral by 2040. And it has also pledged $100 million to Yale University to create a

According to FedEx’s own 2020 Global Citizenship Report, the company has seemingly already made decent strides in other areas of their sustainability agenda as well by increasing its use of renewable energy, working to replace the use of diesel with more alternative fuels, and diverting large amount of wastes from landfills through its FedEx EarthSmart Champion Program. Likewise, in FY2019, FedEx made the decision to make more frequent use of intermodal rail transport for some of its deliveries, saving a reportedly estimated 281,278 gallons of fossil fuel emissions.

But the fight to save the climate is much more than about making headlines, it’s also about making real change. And while FedEx is quick to laud its “green” spending habits, there’s one habit that deserves a much closer look: FedEx’s continued support of by serving on its board of directors. The Chamber Watch  website has already covered in detail about how even the rosiest of the U.S. Chamber’s statements regarding clean energy investments should be taken with a grain of salt given its current support for Big Oil and other fossil fuel corporations, for example by pushing for expanded drilling.

But if FedEx is actually committed to the fight for a sustainable future (and hey, $2 billion is nothing to sneeze at) then why on Earth would the company continue to support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

The answer is simple. It shouldn’t. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is powerless without the assistance of its member businesses like FedEx. If FedEx truly wants to keep the world safe for humanity, it shouldn’t continue to claim they support a cleaner way of doing business and still be close supporters of the advocates for the very polluters themselves.

A sustainable environment is something we all have to work together to help deliver.

Disney

Disney’s Problematic Relationship with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

0

 The United States Chamber of Commerce has consistently advocated against the best interests of the American people, serving the interests of fossil fuel companies at the expense of the future health of our planet.

 But it couldn’t do this alone. The U.S. Chamber gains its lobbying power through the use of ample donations from corporations across country. This new blog series, Chamber Climate Conflicts, surveys how specific corporations’ continued support of the oil and gas lobbying U.S. Chamber of Commerce directly contradicts these companies’ own messaging on the importance of environmental activism and continued care for the planet.

 First up: The Walt Disney Company

With its enduring status as an iconic symbol within American culture, Disney is one of the most recognizable brands in America. Most of us have fond childhood memories of the adventures of Mickey, Donald, and Goofy. Just this past holiday season, its newest movie, Soul, touched hearts across the country (and it was pretty funny too). However, what’s the point of all of the joy generated through Disney’s entertainment if its support of the oil and gas lobbying U.S. Chamber of Commerce could ultimately serve to deplete the joy of future generations because of climate change?

In recent years, Disney has affirmatively marketed itself as an environmentally conscious organization. Even just this last December, Disney released a new set of long term goals to be met by 2030, specifically detailing the company’s desire to “achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions” and to “collaborate with industry groups and invest in low carbon fuel innovation.” Similarly, last month Disney announced that it is producing a new movie showcasing the harms of climate change inflicted on the ice caps of Svalbard, Norway (an undeniably timely move, given the frightening situation of Svalbard’s quickly rising temperatures this last summer).

And while a quick glance of the House of Mouse’s a deeper dive into their website reveals their And what does the Chamber of Commerce do with Disney’s ample donations and funding?

Perform noxious lobbying that directly contradicts the intent behind all of Disney’s positive stances, posts, and proclamations regarding the fight against climate change.

In fact, the Chamber of Commerce has served as an effective villain to the movement to combat climate change for quite some time, taking destructive actions including advocating for an indefinite reliance on oil, natural gas, and coal; cheering and lobbying for the success of the environmentally harmful Keystone XL Pipeline Project (which much to the dismay of the Chamber has thankfully been halted by the Biden Administration); and using its extensive influence and reach to prop up climate change-denying congressional candidates across the nation. In the past, the Chamber has even funded widely debunked research studies critical of environmental protection agreements trying to save our planet.

These shockingly backward positions have been repeated in the recent anti-climate policies and personnel being pushed by the trade association. Even as recently as the last two years, the Chamber of Commerce advocated for oil and gas interests by not only filing across the nation, but also during the Trump Administration. Not a great look when the effects of climate change are all around us. And, the Chamber’s positions are contrary to public opinion polling that continues to make it clear that the American people believe we all need to be taking the dangers of climate change more seriously.

If Disney’s leadership truly wants to make environmental advocacy a core tenet of the corporation, they have to be more mindful of the company that they keep. It’s time for the Walt Disney Co. to drop ties with the toxic U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and fully join the rest of us in the fight for a better environment for generations to come.

The “happiest place on earth” can only be a place with a real commitment to a sustainable and livable future.

marek-szturc-8Ou3EZmTMWA-unsplash

Don’t Be Fooled, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Still a Wolf

0

Last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce submitted a rulemaking petition to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requesting that the agency limit potential plaintiffs’ ability to participate in COVID-19-related class action securities lawsuits. Such a move would prevent investors from suing a company if company leaders made statements about the company’s financial situation or COVID recovery plan that had an adverse effect on their stock. Such a limitation on investors’ rights would make it difficult to hold companies accountable for making false or misleading statements that led to an investor’s economic loss. The Chamber’s request is just seeking to limit everyday people’s ability to hold corporate actors accountable for wrongdoing, and Public Citizen will fight back to urge the SEC to deny the Chamber’s request.

This latest request by the Chamber shows how  the trade association for the country’s largest corporate interests is once again on the wrong side of the policy debate. The Chamber, for example, has spent nearly all of this year lobbying Congress and state legislatures for corporate immunity from coronavirus-related lawsuits even though the data show that these lawsuits are not common, and would make consumers, patients, and workers less safe. The Chamber’s insistence on corporate immunity has exacerbated Americans’ suffering because that helped stall coronavirus stimulus from being passed since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that he would not agree to any stimulus package that did not include a corporate immunity provision.

Even after more than 260,000 individuals have died from COVID-19—with the death toll expected to continue to rise this winter—the  Chamber is still advocating for policies that place corporate interests above the needs of everyday people. The Chamber continues to take this misguided position even though giving companies corporate immunity is hugely unpopular with the public.

While the Chamber continues to lobby for disastrous policies that limit access to the justice system for individuals wronged by corporate greed, it is also seeking to rebrand itself as a kinder and gentler Chamber.

For example, the Chamber is pushing new “climate messaging” that it “stand[s] with every American seeking a cleaner, stronger environment—for today and tomorrow.” But,  just a cursory look into its recent actions reveal the statement to be emptier than your nearest Blockbuster. A recent report released by Change the Chamber, a student led climate campaign that has joined Chamber Watch in fighting against the Chamber of Commerce’s disastrous advocacy, outlines the Chamber’s hypocrisy in detail. Dating back to last year, the Chamber has not only continued to be an active participant in energy lawsuits across the nation by filing numerous amicus briefs strongly advocating for fossil fuel interests (with multiple amicus briefs supporting the petrochemical industry and industrial polluters as well), but it also successfully lobbied for the nomination of multiple fossil fuel connected officials to fill positions within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Department of Energy. Maybe someone should tell the Chamber that pretending to stand with every American means reading a poll every now and then?

As we enter into a new Administration, Chamber Watch and Public Citizen will continue to work to expose the threat that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to pose to our democracy, environment, and workers across the country.

We’ve never been a fan of disguises—especially when it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Shade

The Shade of Dark Money

, , , 0

Recent Senate Report Details U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Toxic Influence on Climate Policy

By: Zach Brown

The horrific wildfires currently raging across the West Coast serve as a strong reminder that we cannot overlook the hazardous situation our nation’s addiction to fossil fuels has placed us in. The climate crisis truly stops for nothing—especially not for a global health pandemic. Given how the twin crises of COVID-19 and climate change are killing Americans, we must make sure Congress is focusing on solutions to our warming planet so that we are not increasing the likelihood of future pandemics.

One part of embracing the solutions to climate change means minimizing the influence of groups that oppose strong action to reducing dangerous pollution in our atmosphere.

Opponents include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which influences elections by utilizing funds not disclosed to the public—commonly referred to as “dark money”. Recently, a report by the Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis dedicated a section to detailing dark money’s influence on our climate laws and how it directly harms efforts to adequately address the climate crisis.

The Senate committee’s report traces the history of “dark money” spending made possible through the disastrous 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, which effectively eliminated limits on political spending by organizations. The report shows how the ability of groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, and without disclosing the groups’ donors, drastically altered the fight against climate change. Without effective limits on political spending, fossil fuel companies are able to flood the political process with corporate dollars and influence politicians to make policy decisions that are solely beneficial to the fossil fuel industry, tossing the wishes of the voters and a much-needed consideration for the environment by the wayside. The report raises the question — how are fossil fuel companies getting away with this right under the noses of the American people?

Well, the short answer is simple: These fossil fuel executives aren’t exactly operating in plain view. Fossil fuel execs actively utilize “front groups” by funneling their money through trade associations that sow doubt about climate science. These front groups were pushing this misinformation even before Citizens United— the report details that one of the most influential front groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), back in 2006  ran a TV ad with the tagline, “Carbon dioxide? They call it pollution. We call it life.” And who would fund an organization that makes statements like these? Public reports have detailed that not only is ExxonMobil a heavy contributor to CEI, but also that non-oil related corporations like Amazon and Google have supported CEI.

However, when it comes to the despicable art of working against the common human interest of ensuring a livable environment for the future, one big spender towers over the rest. The U.S Chamber of Commerce, one of the largest lobbying groups in the nation, has spent almost $150 million on congressional campaigns since Citizens United, with most going to candidates who oppose action on the climate crisis. Spanning decades, the Chamber’s activities range from funding widely debunked studies critical of environmental protection agreements to aggressively defending energy sector interests against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan in court.

Member corporations know that they can donate as many millions as they please to the Chamber of Commerce’s coffers and the Chamber will keeping their donation secret, thereby protecting the corporation from public censure if the Chamber uses the money to fight progress on addressing climate change. The report notes that the amount of money fossil fuel executives has given to the Chamber is still relatively unknown. It’s time to remove this shield.

The Senate committee’s report details both legislative and regulatory solutions to combat the Chamber’s influence on climate policy. For one, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should engage in rulemaking that forces the companies it regulates to disclose all spending on political influence activities, including money funneled to problematic trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce. Second, Congress should pass comprehensive legislation requiring these trade associations to be fully transparent in their political and election spending, shining a much-needed light on the dark money that clogs legislative progress. We’ve already seen what this potential bill could look like: The House of Representatives bill H.R. 1 (For the People Act of 2019), which passed earlier this year, would overturn Citizens United and make other critical reforms.  We must continue to push for these provisions to become law.

If dark-money actors are going to aggressively advocate against the two-thirds of the American people who believe that the federal government needs to do more to combat climate change, they should at least have to show their faces.

 

Sen. Whitehouse quote about "Chamber of Carbon"

Senator Calls Out U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Role in Propping Up Big Oil, Blocking Climate Solutions

, , 0

If you have been following this blog for a while, you know full well that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s hostility to environmental solutions is nothing new. To give just a couple of examples, the Chamber litigated against the Clean Air Act; it co-sponsored a sham study that President Trump later cited to justify withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord; it has sued the EPA at least 15 times; and it once even infamously called for a “Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century” to put climate science on trial. Public Citizen even debated the U.S. Chamber on NBC’s Meet the Press over Obama’s EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Others have taken notice of the Chamber throwing its weight around in the energy arena, including Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). In a recent letter to Pope Francis, Sen. Whitehouse highlighted how the Pope’s global goal of climate action and emissions reductions is being undercut in the United States by the massive lobbying power of Big Oil. Sen. Whitehouse even explicitly called out the Chamber’s role in Big Oil’s sabotage of efforts at climate solutions, noting that “[g]roups like the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and others have been employed as adversaries of meaningful climate legislation, in some cases with little apparent support for their opposition from the majority of the companies that make up their membership.”

The senator hit the nail on the head when it comes to the role the U.S. Chamber plays in propping up Big Oil’s lobbying efforts. The Chamber is collectively receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Philips, Occidental Petroleum, Philips 66, Hess, Apache, Tesoro Petroleum, Marathon Oil, Marathon Petroleum, and Noble Energy—and those are just the companies we know about because of their own spending disclosures, given that the Chamber does not disclose its donors. All of this adds up to massive lobbying power in the legislative sphere directed toward Big Oil’s interests, as the Chamber was, in 2017, the largest lobbying organization by spending in the country.

For its part, the Chamber is not at all ashamed of its role in propping up polluting energy sources to the exclusion of clean energy solutions that could ameliorate the effects of climate change or slow it down. Earlier this month, Chamber president Thomas J. Donohue published a blog post entitled “America Seizes Control of Its Energy Destiny,” celebrating the U.S.’s massively renewed focus on fossil fuel extraction and supply “bolstered by the Trump administration’s emphasis on pro-growth energy policies.” In other words, the Big Oil companies that make up the Chamber’s members and donors stand to profit hugely off of a shameless return to promoting fossil fuels to the detriment of green, renewable energy sources—and our environment.

Donohue’s post also promotes the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, which works to “unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders and the American public” behind a Big Oil-friendly energy agenda. The Institute proudly touts buzzwords like “innovation,” “clean energy,” and “efficiency,” but the actual policies it advocates for are just the opposite. For example, it calls for offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) that represent the same things Big Oil has always wanted: domination of the U.S. energy market to maximize profit, with no regard for the environmental destruction caused along the way.

True to form, the Chamber has also been painting the fossil fuel industry as the put-upon victim of vicious attacks by some massive opposition out to get them. In a recent post called “The Climate Change Tort Racket,” the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform wrote that “[p]laintiffs’ attorneys and left-leaning politicians are ganging up to shake down big oil.” The post asserts that these big bad plaintiffs are seeking to rob the poor oil industry of its resources, “looking for quick cash.” This, of course, ignores the plainly observable reality that Big Oil is a lobbying behemoth, armed with all of the legal power that the money of corporate mammoths can buy. Big Oil is Goliath, not David. Not to mention that Big Oil’s business is threatening all of human civilization with runaway global warming, and Big Oil has known about the threat longer than just about anyone and has been actively lying about it.

As Sen. Whitehouse’s letter to Pope Francis makes clear, the Big Oil lobby in the U.S., as propped up by the likes of the U.S. Chamber, has been an immovable obstacle in the way of the United States meeting its global obligations to reduce carbon emissions and promote climate solutions. Through blocking meaningful climate legislation, and through lobbying an extremely corporate-friendly Republican-controlled White House and Congress to remove barriers on the fossil fuel industry and deter them from alternative energy sources, the hope for the U.S. to be a global leader on climate issues seems grim.

Still, all hope is not lost. Nearly half of the Chamber’s board members have taken pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and a number of companies have already left the Chamber over its environmental policies. Customers who buy products from otherwise forward-thinking companies speaking out is one of the best ways to create enough momentum to get our nation’s leaders to finally stand up to Big Oil, fully embrace clean, renewable energy and become a force for positive global impact on mitigating climate change. By pressuring the Chamber’s members to #DropTheChamber and signing the petition to urge Pepsi, Disney, and Gap to stop funding the Chamber, the public can play a major role in moving the 800 pound gorilla that is the Chamber away from its current status quo of squashing climate solutions.

U.S. Chamber Watch is a project of Public Citizen. If you’d like to learn more about the Chamber, you can always visit us on www.chamberofcommercewatch.org or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

photo of workers in hard hats on the job

The U.S. Chamber’s Next Assault on Labor: Crushing Worker Centers

, , 0

It will likely not surprise you that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not too fond of unions. The ability for workers to collectively bargain and improve the conditions of their employment is a threat to the bottom lines of the corporations that make up the Chamber’s membership. The Chamber is motivated to block the power of unions by its desire for corporations to have the ability to keep wages low for their workforce, to limit workplace safety protections, and to make sure that workers can’t fight back.

What you may not know, however, is that the Chamber also opposes other, non-union labor initiatives. Enter worker centers. Worker centers are groups of working people from certain sectors who do not have the legal right to collectively bargain, but are nevertheless an important force in advocating for the rights of workers and their communities. Worker centers might organize for better wages and benefits, or they might educate the public about injustices such as racism in the labor market. They do not have the same legal status as a union, but they provide a valuable safety net to workers who do not or cannot belong to a union.

Apparently, the Chamber is outraged by even that level of worker protection. They have taken up the mantle of impugning worker centers with the ultimate goal of doing away with them. In April, the Chamber released a report entitled “Worker Centers: Union Front Groups and the Law.” In it, the Chamber lays out the argument that worker centers are “union front groups”—that is, that they are secretly unions going by another name and should be regulated the same way unions are. This is transparently absurd: worker centers exist specifically to serve populations that are not served by unions, and they lack the power to collectively bargain, which is one of the defining attributes of unions. The Chamber would have us ignore this clear distinction because it is inconvenient for its narrative.

As is so often the case, this effort to dismantle the power of worker centers by the Chamber mirrors a similar effort by the GOP. House Republicans have vowed to make the same changes to worker centers’ legal classification as the Chamber is advocating for.

Of course, if the Chamber and its buddies in the GOP truly felt that worker centers are secretly unions, they could say that centers should have all of the same collective bargaining power as unions do. But of course they won’t do that, because these arguments are in bad faith: the Chamber and its allies know full well that worker centers are merely a minimal line of defense for workers who have nothing else to protect them, and are unable to tolerate even that meager level of worker protections.

It should not surprise us that the Chamber takes such consistently anti-worker stances. However, it actually may surprise the corporations that are members of the Chamber and proclaim to care about their workers’ lives and well-being. For instance, McDonald’s and Gap both having sections on their websites about respecting the human rights of their workers. These companies should take a long look at the Chamber’s appalling record on workers’ rights and withdraw their funding and support for the Chamber.

Photo credit: Flickr user Washington State Dept. of Transportation | CC BY 2.0

U.S. Chamber Watch is a project of Public Citizen. If you’d like to learn more about the Chamber, you can always visit us on www.chamberofcommercewatch.org or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Load More