Its a good rule of thumb: If the US Chamber of Commerce the trade association for large corporations is whipped up about something, theres probably good reason for the public to strongly back whatever has sent the Chamber into fits. Well, the Chamber is apoplectic over a modest Obama administration proposed executive order that would require government contractors to reveal all of their campaign-related spending.
This is a case where the rule of thumb works. The proposed executive order would provide important information about campaign spending by large corporations, and work to reduce the likelihood that contracts are provided as payback for campaign expenditures.
You can urge the administration to stand up to the US Chamber of Commerce by signing the petition at (www.citizen.org/disclosure-petition). The US Chamber is of course no stranger to using exaggerated rhetoric to advance its positions.
In a spell-binding bit of Alice-in-Wonderland logic, the Chamber is arguing that the Executive Order will actually enable pay-to-play abuses! An email action alert from the Friends of the US Chamber of Commerce raises the specter of your tax dollars only going to those companies or contractors that have contributed to a particular political party, asking, Sounds like pay-to-play, right?
It certainly does!
Why does the Chamber make this point? Because it then goes on to argue thats exactly what could happen if the White House, as expected, issues a new Executive Order (EO) requiring American employers seeking federal government contracts to disclose their political contributions in excess of $5,000. And thus does Alice fall down the rabbit hole.
The Chamber attempts to argue that if the government knows which companies are making political expenditures, the administration in power will reward those it likes and punish those it doesnt. Heres the problem with that logic: The government already knows. Company political action committees must disclose their spending. Direct contributions by company executives and employees are already disclosed.
What is not disclosed publicly are the secret contributions that corporations funnel through trade associations and front groups to influence elections. Thanks to the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, more than $130 million in secret money was spent in the 2010 election, and that figure is certain to skyrocket in 2012. What is an example of a trade association that funnels such corporate money, you might ask. Why, the number one example is the US Chamber of Commerce.
Is it just possible that this helps explain the vociferousness of the Chambers objection? (Hint: yes.)
Now, the US Chamber rolls out some other complaints about the Presidents draft executive order. It would only apply to corporations, but not big labor unions, grumbles the action alert from Friends of the US Chamber. Actually, the executive order will apply to unions, in cases where they may be government contractors. But more to the point: There was legislation considered last year that would have required disclosure of all union contributions to groups making campaign-related expenditures, the DISCLOSE Act. That legislation was defeated by a single vote in the Senate ... thanks to the opposition of the US Chamber of Commerce and its allies in the Republican Party.
With America facing a severe budget crisis, your tax dollars should be closely protected, states the Friends of the US Chamber action alert. As such, government contracts should be awarded based on qualifications and cost just as they are in the private sector.
Except that the Chamber draws exactly the wrong conclusion. To protect our tax dollars, we need at a bare minimum openness and disclosure of contractors campaign spending. We cant afford and should not tolerate secret spending accounts that invite government contracting corruption.
Urge the President to stand up to the Chamber today: www.citizen.org/disclosure-petition.
Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen (citizen.org).
From The Progressive Populist, June 15, 2011
News | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us