U.S. Chamber of Commerce

  • October 19, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s leading lobbyist for corporate America, is feverishly working to alter a federal law that has, as noted in a recent report published by the Open Society Foundations, helped spur a global effort to fight corrupt business practices.

    In “Busting Bribery: Sustaining the Global Momentum of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” scholars David Kennedy and Dan Danielsen write that the United States “has been a global leader in the fight against corruption,” citing the enactment in 1977 of the FCPA.

    Early in the report Kennedy, a Harvard Law School professor, and Danielsen, a Northeastern University School of Law professor, note that the U.S. took the lead in fighting corrupt business practices overseas because its leaders realized that far-reaching “corruption abroad imposes enormous costs on American business, damages the global business environment and undermines the integrity and effectiveness of governments. A culture of corruption raises the costs of penetrating foreign markets and undermines predictability and business confidence. It imposes particular hardships on small and medium sized American enterprises seeking to participate in the global economy.”

    Government and businesses had joined together to work to end corrupt business practices, which hobble efforts of smaller corporations to engage the global market. The passage of the FCPA, the authors write, “represented an alliance between the government and the American business community, driven by a shared recognition of the harms inflicted on American business by foreign corruption. The Act raised the cost of corruption and encouraged sound business practice. By criminalizing the payment of bribes abroad, the FCPA strengthened the hand of American business in refusing the demands of foreign officials. By requiring that listed companies maintain records and file reports, the FCPA encouraged internal vigilance by leading business actors.”

  • August 1, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Beyond fighting caps on bailed-out bankers’ salaries and pressuring Congress for a so-called tax holiday, allowing corporations to bring overseas profits back home at a significant tax-break, business interests are also feverishly working to undercut the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill that was enacted last year.

    The Wall Street Journalreports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness is contemplating legal action against an Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule adopted in spring that encourages people to alert the SEC to corporate malfeasance, which could in turn “lead to penalties exceeding $1 million,” the newspaper’s Jean Eaglesham reports.

    The Future Industry Association, the WSJ, is also mulling over challenges to another provision of the Dodd-Frank bill that prohibits some “trading practices in commodities and other derivatives.”

    The WSJ and ABA Journal noted that a recent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has prompted business interests to consider further challenges to Dodd-Frank. A three-judge panel of the appeals court last week invalidated an SEC rule intended to make “it easier for shareholders of publicly traded companies to nominate corporate directors,” The Blog of LegalTimes reported. The BLT continued, “The appeals court sided with the business groups’ lawyers, who argued that investors with special interests, including unions and state and local governments, would be likely to put the maximization of the shareholder value second to other interests.”

    A wide-ranging panel discussion at the ACS 10th Anniversary National Convention explored the future of securities litigation pursuant to Dodd-Frank. Video of that discussion is available here.

  • March 18, 2010
    A forthcoming report by the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake will show that unprecedented sums of money are being spent to influence the election of judges, ABC News reports.

    "In the past decade, candidates for state judgeships raised more than $206 million, more than double the $83 million judges raised in the 1990s," according to the forthcoming study. ABC News also noted former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have spoken out against the large sums of money flowing into judicial campaigns.

    O'Connor recently told Georgetown law students that the amount of money being funneled into electing judges has become "a threat to judicial independence." When asked about judicial elections in the 39 states that conduct them at a recent event by the National Association of Women Judges, Justice Ginsburg said, "If there's a reform I would make, it would be that."

    University of Maryland law school professor Sherrilyn Ifill, in a post for Concurring Opinions, said the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which invalidated decades of restrictions on corporate campaign contributions, "is likely to unleash a virtual run on judicial elections in some states," citing the ABC News article

    Ifill continued:

    There is a real constitutional crisis in the judiciary of some states (and no, Justice Roberts, it's not the judicial pay scale). More and more, state courts are losing confidence of the public. The single largest contributor to judicial elections is the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups. Business advocates argue that this is to counter the influence trial judges had in the 1980s, when they were the largest contributors to judicial campaigns. Whatever the history, the reality is that there are strong, well-financed forces favorable to business and to conservative political principles that exert powerful influence over state judicial elections.

    Earlier this week other media outlets reported on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's plans to significantly ratchet up its campaign contributions. The Washington Post reported that the pro-business lobby "plans to spend at least $50 million on political races and related activities this year, a 40 percent increase from 2008." The newspaper noted that high court's Citizens United opinion has "bolstered" the organization's potential to sway this year's midterm elections. 

  • March 17, 2010
    According to reports from The New York Times and The Washington Post, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a big business lobbying group, is planning to spend even larger sums of money to influence this year's midterm elections. Thomas J. Donohue, leader of the chamber, told The Post that its electioneering plans are "the most aggressive voter-education and issue-advocacy effort in our nearly hundred-year history." The Times reported yesterday the chamber is also unleashing a "multimillion dollar wave of advertising that rivals the ferocity of a presidential campaign" and will target Democrats "whose votes will determine the fate of President Obama's top domestic priority," heal care reform.

    The Post notes:

    The chamber's potential impact on the November elections was bolstered further by a recent Supreme Court decision, which allows corporations and their surrogates to spend freely on political ads for and against specific candidates right up to Election Day.

    The newspaper also reports that the White House, recognizing the growing public opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, is trumpeting its efforts to mitigate the ruling.

  • March 3, 2010
    Microsoft recently issued a statement responding to "stakeholders" queries on whether it supports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's opposition to major climate and energy legislation pending in Congress. ThinkProgress's Matt Yglesias, noted the announcement, in a blog post, "Microsoft Breaks With Chamber of Commerce over Climate Change."

    In its announcement, Microsoft stated:

    We are pursuing strategies and taking actions that are consistent with a strong commitment to reducing our own impact as well as the impact of our products. In addition, we have adopted a broad policy statement on climate change that expresses support for government action to create market-based mechanisms to address climate change. And, we believe the greatest value Microsoft brings to the fight against climate change is our expertise on the role software and technology can play in reducing carbon emissions. To this end, Microsoft is working ranging from the Digital Energy Solutions Campaign to the World Wildlife Fund to the European Environmental Agency to advance public policies that promote the use of ICT solutions to advance energy efficiency, spur innovation and economic opportunity, and contribute to practical strategies for mitigating climate change.