The Board of Directors is the principal governing and policymaking body of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The board’s membership is as diverse as the nation’s business community itself, with more than 100 corporate and small business leaders serving from all sectors and sizes of business, and from all regions of the country.

In fact, a Wonk Room analysis has found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce board is overwhelmingly Republican, having contributed six to one to conservative over liberal politicians.

The nation’s business community, however, is a bipartisan participant in American politics, contributing about equally to both parties over the last ten years. The Wonk Room has found that from 1999 to 2007, corporate contributions broke 53% to 47% in favor of Republicans. After the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and other Democrats massively outraised that of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other Republicans, the split from 1999 to 2009 stands 52% to 48% in favor of Democrats:

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the OpenSecrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Chamber — when not lying about the effects of climate or health care reform — has grossly inflated the numbers of its members. It also seems it’s misrepresenting the nature of the few members who make its misguided policy decisions.

Methodology: Contribution data from OpenSecrets.org of the top 50 industries to Congress from the 1999-2000 to the 2009-2010 cycle were compiled. Donations from unions, candidate committees, civil servants, ideological and issue groups, education, and retirees were excluded.

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the LittleSis project of the Public Accountability Initiative.

The top beneficiary of this outpouring of conservative cash is the Republican National Committee, which has received over ten times as much money from the Chamber’s board as the Democratic National Committee — $1,257,201 versus $102,950. Contributions went 4.5 to 1 for John McCain ($373,150) versus Barack Obama ($82,150).

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the LittleSis project of the Public Accountability Initiative.

Of the board’s 116 members, 96 have made major political contributions. Sixty-eight directly contributed to the campaigns of George W. Bush or John McCain. In contrast, only 27 gave to the campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama. Forty-seven board members, including Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue, have contributed more than 90 percent to Republicans, averaging $74,634 in GOP contributions. Only seven members have contributed more than 90 percent to Democrats, averaging $3,529 to Democrats.

The political giving is dominated by leading Republican billionaire George Argyros, the Bush pioneer who served a disastrous term as the U.S. ambassador to Spain. Argyros is also one of the top backers of Newt Gingrich’s right-wing American Solutions for Winning the Future. The following visualization of Chamber of Commerce board member contributions is a sea of red surrounding a few small islands of blue. The size of each box is proportional to amount of total contributions per person, with the shading indicating percentage of Republican versus Democratic contributions:

The Chamber’s Board: A Right-Wing Money Machine

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the LittleSis project of the Public Accountability Initiative.

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

Randel Johnson, senior v.p. for labor, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Partially in reaction to the problems posed by H1N1, Congress is considering the Healthy Families Act — sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and currently sporting 113 co-sponsors — which would mandate that employers with more than 15 employees provide some paid sick leave. “Sometimes you talk about legislation in the abstract, but this is making people begin to understand the problem,” DeLauro said.

However, the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t seem to understand at all:

“The vast majority of employers provide paid leave of some sort,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the United States Chamber of Commerce. “The problem is not nearly as great as some people say. Lots of employers work these things out on an ad hoc basis with their employees.”

Actually, almost 50 percent of private-sector workers in the U.S. have no paid sick days. A survey last year by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that “68 percent of those not eligible for paid sick days said they had gone to work with a contagious illness like the flu.”

And this is a problem that disproportionately affects lower-income workers, 76 percent of whom have no paid sick leave. This includes 86 percent of food service workers and 78 percent of hotel workers, even though they, arguably, are most able to spread disease. As Ann O’Leary and Karen Kornbluh wrote in The Shriver Report: A Women’s Nation Changes Everything, “too often, most low- and many moderate-wage workers cannot access even the minimum benefits provided to more highly paid workers.”

The U.S. is the only developed country without a policy mandating some form of paid sick leave, while lost productivity due to sick workers attending work and infecting other employees costs the U.S. economy $180 billion annually. And the National Partnership for Women and Families actually found that “while a paid sick days policy would impose modest costs, the estimated business savings total $11.69 per week per worker from lower turnover, improved productivity and reduced spread of illness.”

So, in addition to catching us up with the rest of the world, mandated paid sick leave could be good for business. But the Chamber prefers to overlook low-income workers and real economic benefits in order to advocate for the perceived interests of large employers.

Is there any involvement of the White House whatsoever?

Watch a montage:

Trish Regan’s response to Kudlow’s bizarre suggestion was simply, “We’re going to leave it there.”

Mother Jones and Talking Points Memo report that the spoof was conducted by the Yes Men and the Avaaz Climate Action Factory, a youth activist organization.

It should be noted that FBN’s Brian Sullivan immediately corrected his initial report, when a call to the Chamber for more comment elicited a denial “that they are changing their position on climate change legislation.”

Transcripts:
Fox Business News

BRIAN SULLIVAN: Been a reversal on climate change from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Breaking news right now: Chamber of Commerce saying it will reverse its position on the climate change bill and wants a carbon tax, if you will, in the Senate bill on climate change. Remember, companies like Exelon and other power producers, primarily those of a nuclear side, left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because the chamber opposed the climate change bill. Now, the chamber reversing its position. The reason that Exelon and others left is they said, well, this may be a tax on business, but we need to know what carbon is worth. they want to have more after set price.

All right, so, the U.S. Chamber is denying it now.

All right. So, maybe not. So apparently we just called the Chamber of Commerce, said, “Can you give us more comment on the headlines crossing?” And they’re denying that they are changing their position on climate change legislation, trying to figure out where did the original headlines come from, Justin? Excuse me. All right, coming on the news wires here. Reuters news wire, speak to go my producer. Live TV, folks. So Reuters reporting that U.S. Chamber of Commerce will no longer oppose climate change legislation. We called them up moments ago and said apparently the headline on Reuters may be incorrect. A drama between Reuters and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on climate change legislation.

CNBC, 11:16 AM

REGAN: Actually, i’m going to stop that thought right there. Hampton Pearson, breaking news.

PEARSON: From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a news release basically saying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is now getting ready to throw its weight behind strong climate legislation. A spokesman for the chamber president announcing, quote, “We believe strong climate legislation is the best way to ensure American innovation, create jobs, make sure the U.S. and the world are on track to reduce global carbon emissions and provide the needs of the American business community for generations to come.”

This really is an about-face for the chamber. It comes after frankly some major defections by the likes of PG&E, Apple, PNM Resources, Exxon [sic]. Again, the chamber now saying, “We believe the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is a good start towards strong legislation.” An about-face from the Chamber of Commerce. Now saying that at least the Boxer bill looks like a good path to that goal in Congress. Trish?

REGAN: Thank you so much for that.

CNBC, 11:33 AM

REGAN: We want to go over right now to Hampton Pearson. This is an interesting development here coming from the Chamber of Commerce. Some breaking news. Hampton, what is the latest?

PEARSON: First of all, the Chamber of Commerce saying no change in its policy in opposition to the current climate legislation working its way through Congress and the news item that we came on with earlier, frankly, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is absolutely a hoax. CNBC along with a number of news organizations and major wire services got this so-called announcement of a reversal policy, if you will, simultaneously, went with it. The chamber now says it is absolutely a hoax.

Part of, for instance, where it looked authentic, if you will. This is the item we got. It has the chamber’s logo we’re all familiar with. Even the boilerplate at the end of a typical Chamber of Commerce news release. with a disclaimer of how large an organization it is in terms of representing businesses, et cetera. The other thing that perked our interest in terms of news is the news release did point out that there have been some significant defections from the chamber recently over this whole issue of climate energy policy. At this point in time, according to the Chamber of Commerce, this so-called bulletin is a hoax.

REGAN: Have they given you any indication in terms of the source of where this might have come from?

PEARSON: Not yet. We’re doing our own independent checking to try to run it down. we’re not the only news organization doing all that. Again, we came on with the headline. But also at least within the last half hour or so have been able to verify it and turn it around.

REGAN: Hampton, have we seen any real uptick in some of the natural gas stocks or any other company that might have been — we had an analyst as you’ll recall right after your report saying look to some of the natural gas companies. They may see a runup as a result of those news. Have we seen any big moves in trading?

PEARSON: I personally haven’t had a chance to look at that frankly because just getting involved and trying to find out about the authenticity of this, been frankly focused and trying to run that aspect of this story down as we speak.

KUDLOW: Authenticity hunt, which I appreciate. Is there any involvement of the White House whatsoever?

PEARSON: I couldn’t even begin to go there, Larry, on that one.

KUDLOW: Just thought I’d ask. Just thought I’d ask.

REGAN: Cover all the ground you can. All right. We’re going to leave it there. Thank you so much, Hampton, for updating us.

I think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t act in in the best interest of business. They represent what was historically best for business. They represent exactly what’s the polar opposite of the future of business. The chamber is a voice of the energy industry, of the coal industry. As you’ve seen in the last couple of days, Nike gives up its position on the board, Apple resigns — businesses will increasingly abandon the chamber because they are just so wrong on this issue. Not that they’re not wrong on most issues, but they’re more wrong on this issue than they usually are.

Watch it:

Hollender further described membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a “reputational risk“:

These companies, like Nike and Apple, are taking a leadership position with their own energy efficiency initiatives. They don’t want to see a playing field where companies who abuse and pollute get benefits, and companies that are more efficient don’t. So, part of it is making sure the playing field is leveled. But I also think it’s undeniably important that the consumers of these companies would be embarrassed if they knew that Nike was sitting on the board of the chamber. I mean, I think it’s a reputational risk to be associated with the chamber, given their behavior.

Pausing in the Russell Senate building between meetings with senators from some of the 20 states in which Seventh Generation has manufacturing facilities, Hollender explained why capitalists like himself support the efforts of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to craft legislation with a cap-and-trade and energy efficiency provisions to cut global warming pollution and promote clean energy investment. Responding to critics who claim that advocates of a green economy are “socialists” who want to “kill capitalism,” he said, “the fact that we should be responsible for the effect we have on other people, anyone who tells you that’s anti-capitalist is crazy.”

Hollender concluded that Congress should pass clean energy and climate legislation immediately, because it’s “right for business, right for the economy, right for jobs, and good for the future of the country.”

We are virtually certain that climate change is occurring, and occurring because of man’s activities. We’re virtually certain the probability distribution curve is all bad. There’s no good things that’s going to come of this. But what’s uncertain is exactly which one of those things are going to occur and in what time frame. In the probability distribution curve is about a 50% probability that about half of all species will become extinct or be subject to extinction over this period of time. What we will never know on an ex ante basis is whether or not man be one of those casualties or not.

We condemn Wall Street for taking risks with our economy — risks that all of you are trying very hard to reverse — but at the same time we’re taking exactly the same kind of risks, with no upside whatsoever, with regard to our climate, failing to practice even the basic risk management techniques in terms of climate change reduction.

Watch it:

In a powerful speech, Leonard called a national system to cap carbon pollution “an investment that by all facts, figures and analysis pays back many times over,” and warned that “history will judge us if we don’t pass comprehensive climate and energy reform now” for “cheating [our children] out of their future.”

Entergy serves “two-and-a-half million customers in the mid-South and the Gulf South portion of the country, some of the poorest people in the country,” Leonard noted. These customers already suffered the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, which global warming likely fueled.

Although Entergy’s website warns that the “ramifications of global climate change, while uncertain, paint a devastating portrait of an unsustainable world” and that what “the United States does now is critical to eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of catastrophic outcomes for future generations,” the corporation is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spending millions of dollars to fight the regulation of climate pollution. Entergy plans to remain in the climate-denial organization in an attempt to “convince other members to agree to emissions limits.”

Transcript:

LEONARD: Good morning. We are a broad base of businesses across America. We represent some 37 states. We touch all aspects of the economy. And we have come together this morning unified in one particular request. And that is that we pass comprehensive climate change and energy policy legislation this year. We are prepared as business to invest, to innovate, to transform the energy sector of this country and of the world — the way we source energy, the way we deliver energy, the way we use energy.

We want to get America back in the business of exporting technology instead of dollars. In order to do that, we need comprehensive legislation. We need to know what the rules are going to be with regard to energy and with regard to climate, and particularly with what the price on carbon is going to be in the United States, if we’re to move around the world and export technology to other countries. And we need legislation in order to do that.

I’m the CEO of Entergy. We have nuclear plants around the country. We also serve two-and-a-half million customers in the mid-South and the Gulf South portion of the country, some of the poorest people in the country. People that have been through Katrina, Gustav, Ike, Rita. You name it, they’ve been through it. Nobody should ever have to suffer through a Katrina.

Last night, I was talking to Secretary Salazar. And he asked me, “What happens to New Orleans when sea level rise is not an inch from thermal expansion but meters, due to land ice melt in west Antarctica and Greenland?”

I said, “Well, we have a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen, but we do have some protections, because we’re working on New Orleans. What we haven’t given enough thought to is what happens to everybody else.”

What happens to all the coastal cities. What happens to the East Coast of the US with the slightly tilt of the planet on its axis as we melt those ice caps. There’s no protection for them. And we’re not talking about hurricanes any more, we’re talking about potentially tsunami-type of events like we’ve seen in Asia, like we’ve seen most recently in American Samoa. A completely different set of events than what we’re used to.

Some people say we can’t do this because of the cost.

As business, we all look at in terms of it’s an investment. In this case it’s an investment that by all facts, figures and analysis pays back many times over. It pays back with reduced adaptation costs in the future, reduced repair and damage from these type of events, and growth in the economy through transferring technology around the world and creating jobs at home.

Some people say we can’t do this because there are some things that are uncertain.

But that is in large part precisely the reason that we need to act, because of the uncertainty, not necessarily because of the things that we do know. We do know a lot, as you all know.

We are virtually certain that climate change is occurring, and occurring because of man’s activities.

We’re virtually certain the probability distribution curve is all bad. There’s no good things that’s going to come of this. But what’s uncertain is exactly which one of those things are going to occur and in what time frame. In the probability distribution curve is about a 50% probability that about half of all species will become extinct or be subject to extinction over this period of time. What we will never know on an ex ante basis is whether or not man be one of those casualties or not.

We condemn Wall Street for taking risks with our economy — risks that all of you are trying very hard to reverse — but at the same time we’re taking exactly the same kind of risks, with no upside whatsoever, with regard to our climate, failing to practice even the basic risk management techniques in terms of climate change reduction.

We talk a lot about in this issue about “us” and “we.” Just so all you know this is not about us. It’s about our children. It’s about our children’s children. When our children are born, we know at that moment in time, that there isn’t anything in the world that we wouldn’t do for them. And as they grow, we know for certain that we would give up our lives for our children. For some reason we won’t do this. We’re cheating them out of their future, and we’re doing it with our eyes wide open. And that’s exactly how history will judge us if we don’t pass comprehensive climate and energy reform now.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

The reason for our departure from the chamber is that we had repeated discussions with the chamber about how the direction they were on was not consistent with our position, in fact, very much at odds. And their response was, “We’ll take care of it. Really, our position and yours, PG&E, are much closer than you believe them to be, and don’t be concerned about that.” And we went down a road over several years, and there was fact after fact, development after development that caused us to believe that fundamentally we had entirely different positions.

Watch the video at E&E News.

The Chamber claims that federal regulation to limit global warming pollution would “strangle the economy.” and has even called for a “Scopes monkey trial” on the science of global warming. Darbee, not surprisingly, called that “extreme language, certainly not language that we at PG&E were comfortable with.”

I am sorry to learn of Apple’s resignation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.

Apple — recognized as the most innovative company in the world — had criticized the Chamber for not having a “more progressive stance” on climate change, saying, “We strongly object to the Chamber’s comments opposing the EPA’s efforts to limit greenhouse gases.”

Apple is right. The Chamber of Commerce has a 19th-century stance on global warming, opposes regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and has become an enemy of a clean-energy economy. The Chamber has promoted the work of climate skeptics on the radical fringe from 1992 to the present day. This year, the Chamber called for a “Scopes monkey trial” on climate science, attacking the scientific evidence of the threat of global warming pollution to the public welfare in a legal filing against the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Chamber claims to “support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change,” but has virulently opposed any such legislation, including McCain-Leiberman in 2003 and 2005, Lieberman-Warner in 2007, and Waxman-Markey in 2009.

Furthermore, the Chamber has set an impossible standard for climate legislation: the Chamber’s “support” for federal legislation is “conditional on an international agreement that requires full international participation,” knowing full well that such a treaty is impossible without U.S. legislation. Worse, the Chamber is opposed to the United States setting tariffs on countries that don’t limit their greenhouse gases even if we do, claiming that would “set off a trade war.”

The energy industries of the 19th century — coal and oil — are controlling U.S. Chamber of Commerce energy policy. We can only hope that the future of the United States is determined instead by 21st century companies like Apple, and the hundreds of others that are calling for strong climate action today.

The letter in full:

Mr. Steven P. Jobs
Chief Executive Officer
Apple Inc.
One Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014

Dear Mr. Jobs:

I am sorry to learn of Apple’s resignation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change. Furthermore, we believe that Congress should set climate change policy through legislation, rather than having the EPA apply existing environmental statutes that were not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is also the stated position of the President and Congressional leaders.

Your letter states that “Apple is committed to the environment and the communities in which we operate around the world.” So is the Chamber but we are also committed to preserving the competitiveness and prosperity of the communities and businesses in our nation.

While we do support legislation to address climate change, we oppose legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill that numerous studies show will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits. An effective climate change response must include all major CO2 emitting economies, promote new technologies, emphasize efficiency, ensure affordable energy for families and businesses, and defend American jobs while returning our economy to prosperity.

The American business community that we proudly represent is the single largest investor and innovator in clean energy solutions and remains committed to a strong economy and clean environment. We continue to remind the public and policymakers that it has been the private sector that has developed the innovations that we now take for granted, from the personal computer to the medicines that keep us healthy. The Chamber believes that the business community will continue to be the catalyst for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we support efforts to tackle climate change in a way that will strengthen our economy, protect American jobs, and benefit our environment.

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. The Chamber supports an international agreement that will set realistic and achievable goals, ensure global participation, protect intellectual property rights and remove trade barriers to environmental goods and services.

I would have hoped that Apple would have supported our efforts to improve environmental stewardship and keep Americans at work and our economy competitive. As the world’s largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, the Chamber is leading the way to support the innovation needed to transition to a lower carbon future, including the elimination of barriers to the deployment of clean energy technologies. Supporting innovation and technology is at the very heart of our efforts to combat climate change, and we will continue to fight for an approach that embraces their merits.

It is a shame that Apple will not be part of our efforts.

Sincerely,

Tom Donohue

The former claim is demonstrably false, and the latter claim is laughable. The Chamber’s “support” for federal legislation is “conditional on an international agreement that requires full international participation.” Since such an international treaty is profoundly unlikely unless the United States passes federal legislation, the Chamber’s “sensible” policy is a recipe for inaction. Paradoxically, the Chamber even opposes tariffs on imports from countries that don’t limit greenhouse gases, claiming that would “set off a trade war.”

Furthermore, the state-level chambers of commerce, affiliated with and supported financially by the U.S. Chamber, continue to promote extremist global warming denial, paying climate skeptics Roy Spencer, Glenn Beck, Steven Milloy, and Steven Hayward to speak before their members.

Kansas Chamber of Commerce, September 21:

Global warming? So what. That was the message Monday from research scientist and best-selling author Roy Spencer to legislative leaders, lobbyists and leading business officials at the Kansas Chamber of Commerce business and energy summit. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and author of “Climate Confusion.” Spencer doesn’t deny that Earth is warming, but he attributes that to natural climate cycles and not to the increase in greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

Michigan Chamber of Commerce, September 15:

Although Glenn Beck’s race-baiting and McCarthyism have led a massive advertiser boycott of his Fox News program, the largest business lobby in the United States has chosen to embrace him as the “dinner keynote speaker” for the 2009 “Future Forum” at Michigan State University’s Kellog Forum on September 15th.

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, September 4:

The Chamber announced last Wednesday that it was giving a major platform at the Business Summit to Steven J. Milloy, the founder of the Web site JunkScience.com. Milloy is expected to talk about his book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them,” as an introduction to the “save coal” session. Steve Roberts, the Chamber president, said: “Steve Milloy’s remarks will be timely and interesting, given the current controversies that are being driven by the debate over environmental issues such as global warming, energy use and the economic impacts of all of this. West Virginia is one of the states that could be affected significantly depending on how things go with the scientific and political debate over current environmental issues.”

Indiana Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Club, April 29:

More recently, environmental experts such as April 29 Economic Club of Indiana speaker Steven Hayward, have publicly disagreed with Gore and company. Hayward, an environmental researcher holding numerous prestigious fellowships and an adjunct professorship at Georgetown University, starred in a film rebutting Gore’s claims of pending disaster as a result of climate change. Hayward is of the belief that the planet goes through natural periods of warming and cooling and is not tremendously influenced by the activity of human beings.

Energy companies are abandoning the sinking ship of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in droves over its opposition to climate change action. The Chamber is aggressively opposing efforts by President Obama and the Congress to fight global warming pollution, saying federal regulation would “strangle the economy” and cap-and-trade legislation would be “economically disruptive of business and industry activities.” However, responding to the criticism of the companies who have left the Chamber, spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel claimed his organization respects the science of climate change:

We’ve never questioned the science behind global warming.

This is a blatant falsehood, by any definition. The Chamber has a long history of questioning the science of climate change. The Chamber’s present campaign against regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency questions the existence of global warming as well as the scientific evidence of its impacts on the public health and welfare. The Chamber promotes global warming denier books “to advance our thinking about issues of significance,” and has promoted the work of global warming denier Pat Michaels since at least 1992:

2009: Chamber SVP Kovacs Calls For ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ On The ‘Science Of Climate Change.’ “It would be evolution versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial.” Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President William Kovacs explained that the Chamber was seeking a “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” on global warming to prevent the EPA from declaring greenhouse gases a threat to the public welfare. [Los Angeles Times, 8/25/09]

2009: Chamber Claims No ‘Plausible Theory’ To Link ‘Climate Change With Extreme Weather Events And Disease In The United States,’ Disputes ‘Claims Of Ocean Acidification.’ In an official filing prepared by the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis for the comments on the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited blog posts by global warming deniers such as Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger to challenge a broad range of climate change science, including sea level rise and the “UN/IPCC forecasted temperature increases.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 8/25/09]

2009: National Chamber Foundation Promotes Global Warming Denier Book As ‘#1′ Top Book Of The Year. Promoting “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s National Chamber Foundation writes: “Climatologists Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Balling Jr. explain that climate science is hardly unbiased,” and that the “pop-culture icons of climate change turns out to be short on facts and long on exaggeration.” On Twitter, the National Chamber Foundation ranked the book “#1″ in its “Top Books of ‘09.” [National Chamber Foundation, 8/20/09]

2008: National Chamber Foundation Promotes Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Book Against ‘Global Warming Hysteria.’ The National Chamber Foundation selected “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution and Fraud; And those who are too fearful to do so” by Lawrence Solomon to “help shape the debate on issues important to the business community.” [National Chamber Foundation, 2008]

2008: Chamber President Tom Donohue Says ‘Scientific Inquiry’ Into Climate Change ‘Should Continue’ Because Of ‘Cooling Trend.’ On March 4, 2008, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue revealed his true thoughts to the Chamber’s board, questioning the science of global warming: “As the scientific inquiry continues (and given the recent reports indicating a cooling trend over the last year, such inquiry should continue) the Chamber supports public and private sector action to control the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/4/08]

2003: Chamber Says ‘We Need To Have Better Science’ To Justify Climate Action. Following the defeat of the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade climate legislation in 2003, William Kovacs, the Chamber’s vice president for environment, technology, and regulatory affairs, told the Heartland Institute, “We need to have better science to support any efforts to restrict energy use before Americans can justify sacrificing their jobs, quality of life, and paying almost double for their utility bills.” [Heartland Institute, 11/21/03]

2003: Chamber Claims ‘Every Aspect Of The Environment’ Is ‘Getting Cleaner.’ Praising George W. Bush’s environmental record, William Kovacs dismissed the concept of global warming pollution. “The air, along with every other aspect of the environment, is getting cleaner. I think that has been a true statement for the last 30 years, and it will continue to be. I think Bush has been continuing along that path.” [New York Times, 2/23/2003]

2001: Chamber Claims Global Warming ‘About One Percent From Human Activity,’ Says ‘Things Just Change.’ Appearing on CNNFN, William Kovacs challenged the “link” between human activity and global warming and called for more research. “Let me address two issues. One is, the link. You know, let’s be realistic, 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, you know, really come from water vapor; and another 3 or 4 percent from natural causes, and we’re down to about one percent from human activity. So the Bush plan is really twofold. One is, we’re going to spend another 120-$130 million to see if we can get some of the tough issues, and make the links. Even EPA agrees. You know, yes, there is global warming, but you know, 20 years ago, we were worried about global cooling. Things just change, and before we sink the economy, we need to make sure we’ve got the right research done.” [CNNFN, 7/16/2001]

1992: Chamber Sponsors Global Warming Denier Pat Michaels To ‘Refute The Global Warming Warnings.’ “Bankrolled partly by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Global Climate Coalition, a group of manufacturers fearful of new environmental regulations, Patrick Michaels and Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene M. Trisko have been traveling cross-country to refute the global warming warnings from environmentalists.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/1992]

Today, Exelon CEO John Rowe announced that his company — the largest electric utility company in the United States — would not renew its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of its opposition to global warming action. In his keynote address to the annual conference of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the nation’s largest association of energy efficiency experts, Rowe said that the Chamber’s multi-million-dollar campaign against clean energy legislation is incompatible with Exelon’s commitment to climate change leadership. As Rowe said when he accepted a leadership award from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce in 2008:

Exelon has staked out an industry-leading position on the issue of climate change and, in the spirit of Daniel Burnham, we have launched our own “not so little plan” to eliminate the equivalent of our entire carbon footprint by the year 2020. I do not know if it will stir men’s souls, but I hope it will stir policymakers and others in our industry to action.

Confirming Exelon’s decision to ThinkProgress, a spokesperson explained that “Exelon is a big supporter of climate legislation.” Exelon is the third energy company to sever ties with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the past week, joining Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources.

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

However, the business community is taking no chances, particularly with its opposition to the proposal for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). To that end, the Chamber of Commerce is launching a $2 million ad campaign aimed at quashing support for the CFPA:

The first ads running in Washington-area newspapers feature a picture of a butcher with the line: “Virtually every business that extends credit to American consumers would be affected — even the local butcher and the credit he extends to his customers“…The Chamber’s goal is twofold: move the spotlight off the unpopular commercial banks and mortgage lenders that are the target of the legislation and muster a roster of more sympathetic opponents.

The business lobby also “intends to expand its campaign to include nationwide TV and radio ads later this month. Its lobbying push could feature other small-business owners, such as accountants, landlords and event planners.” The Chamber is currently engaged in a $100 million campaign “to defend and advance economic freedom” and this ad buy fits right in with that effort.

The Chamber admits that the whole point of the ads is to draw attention away from the banks and mortgage lenders at which the CFPA legislation takes aim. But this is simply misdirection, resorting to the right-wing tactic of claiming that legislative changes will decimate small businesses. As Steve Adamske, a spokesman for Frank, said, the campaign amounts to “scare tactics from the likes of big business.”

As proposed now, the CFPA would be able to ban some of the most egregious practices in the consumer lending market (particularly those pertaining to mortgages and credit cards). It’s hard to imagine how the credit that a local butcher extends to his customers would fall into the category of products that the CFPA would be concerned with, but if there is some sort of widespread butcher credit scam going on that threatens the stability of the financial system, then it should be stopped. However, simple business credit is not likely to warrant this kind of attention, unlike the new, risky financial products that banks are dabbling in.

“We believe only a watered-down version of this legislation can pass,” said Jaret Seiberg, policy analyst at investment research firm Concept Capital. If the business lobby has its way, that is exactly what is going to happen, to the detriment of consumers and the strength of the financial system.

If these proposals come to fruition, we will see a federalization of corporate law. It also represents an unprecedented takeover of our markets by the government…Some large activist investors (particularly union pension funds) see SEC-mandated proxy access as an important tool to get more leverage in the boardroom to push a political agenda. From our vantage point we believe that these misguided proposals will harm the American economy and constrain the ability of the business community to create jobs.

According to the Chamber, cap-and-trade, regulating greenhouse gases, the Employee Free Choice Act, creating a consumer protection agency, and health care reform are all going to wreck the economy, and proxy access now needs to be added to the list. But far from economic Armageddon, proxy access would return a bit of accountability to America’s system of corporate governance.

As I pointed out at New Deal 2.0, the current structure of corporate elections discourages accountability and encourages static boards that don’t have to answer to their shareholders. Now, in order to elect a board of directors, a company sends out a “proxy” with its preferred slate of candidates (with the cost billed to the company), while shareholders wishing to place someone on the board have to “pay up for mailing and publicity costs, sometimes in the millions of dollars,” to send out their own, separate ballot. Instead of this, the SEC wants to mandate that shareholders who hold 1 to 5 percent of a company’s shares (depending on the company’s size) for more than one year be able to put their candidates on the main ballot.

Without access to the proxy, shareholders find it exceedingly difficult to exert any pressure on management to curtail hefty bonuses and high-risk profit seeking that come at the expense of long-term growth, while studies have shown that boards with members elected by activist shareholders perform better in both the long- and short-term. The SEC’s proposal would increase corporate democracy, by giving shareholders the opportunity to hold their boards accountable for mistakes.

As Michael Corkery wrote at Deal Journal, the argument that the SEC’s proposal would increase the role of “big government” in the business world “seems a stretch.” Indeed, it appears that the Chamber is invoking the threat of Big Brother to cover its own partnership with the business community’s entrenched interests.

The SEC has proposed implementing what is known as “proxy access,” which would make it easier for shareholders to replace a company’s board of directors. Right now, during a corporate election, a company sends out a “proxy” (ballot) with its preferred slate of candidates, while “dissenting shareholders [must] pay up for mailing and publicity costs, sometimes in the millions of dollars,” to send out their own, separate ballot.

The SEC wants to mandate that shareholders who hold 1 to 5 percent of a company’s shares (depending on the company’s size) for more than one year be allowed to put their candidates on the main ballot. But as the Wall Street Journal reported “the largest U.S. businesses, law firms and business groups have stepped up their challenge” to the SEC’s proposal:

In a last-minute bid to derail or weaken the measure, opposing groups have dispatched both Washington lobbyists and grass-roots letter-writers…The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, is engaging in an all-out lobbying effort with lawmakers that it plans to ramp up after Labor Day.

Currently, only five of the 4,000 public companies that the data service FactSet SharkWatch tracks allow proxy access.

With its opposition, the Chamber is showing its contempt for shareholders who want to hold managers accountable for their actions. As Harvard law professor Lucian Bebchuk wrote, “the objections to the SEC proposal are weak“:

The case for comprehensive reform of corporate elections is supported by a significant body of empirical evidence. Arrangements that insulate directors from removal are associated with lower firm value and worse performance. The proxy rules have been intended by Congress, the courts have stated, “to give true vitality to the concept of corporate democracy.” Adopting the SEC proposal, and the additional reforms I discussed, would advance this important goal.

Even if this proposal were enacted, it wouldn’t cure all that is wrong with American corporate governance, but it would be a step in the right direction. The Chamber, though, prefers a status quo in which corporate boards remain unaccountable to the very people who own the company.

Calling for the “Scopes trial of the 21st century,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has delivered a petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a public hearing on the EPA’s proposed global warming endangerment finding. The petition, acquired by the Wonk Room, claims that scientific research demonstrates global warming has stopped, the oceans aren’t acidifying or warming, sea level isn’t rising, extreme weather events aren’t increasing, tropical diseases aren’t spreading, wildfires aren’t increasing — but even if the planet were getting warmer, then U.S. citizens will be healthier, air pollution will decrease, and U.S. agriculture will benefit. The petition, authored by corporate legal titan Kirkland & Ellis LLP, attacks the “insupportable claims about the impacts of climate change on public health and welfare,” and goes on to argue that a show trial must be held to “eliminate the taint“:

Only such a neutral, record-based and science-based process can hope to eliminate the taint that has now infected the proposed endangerment finding process.

The Chamber concludes that if there is not a public proceeding, the EPA must “withdraw the endangerment proposal entirely”:

The current state of the EPA docket presents the Agency with only two choices. One is to grant the Chamber’s petition, and convert this proceeding to one based solely on the record, so that questions of scientific uncertainty can be narrowed, questions of conflicting scientific views can be resolved, and certain scientifically-indefensible assertions can be put to rest, all with transparency and scientific integrity. The other option is for EPA to withdraw the endangerment proposal entirely.

The Chamber argues that “none of the claims that climate change will cause extreme weather events that could injure the population of the United States appear to have any support in peer-reviewed studies that examine issues of causation” and that “there is no scientific basis to link allergic disorders in any significant way to climate change.”

The Chamber’s petition relies on the work of oil-fueled ideologues, little of it published in peer-reviewed form, to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is damaging the public health. The bloggers Chip Knappenberger and Anthony Watts are cited, as are the oil-funded scientists Pat Michaels, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, and Richard Lindzen, alongside the docket submissions of the National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau, American Petroleum Institute, American Energy Alliance/Institute for Energy Research, and the North American Coal Corporation.

Download the petition here.

It would be evolution versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial.

In 1925, Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was indicted for teaching evolution against state law. His trial, intended as a test of the law, became a national phenomenon when as the World Christian Fundamentals Association and the American Civil Liberties Union brought the famed lawyers William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow into battle. Scopes was found guilty. Even though the state supreme court overturned the verdict of the “bizarre case” on a technicality, the public fallout was intense. The anti-evolution movement lost steam (before being reborn as “intelligent design“) and science textbooks with biblical quotations were phased out.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking a similarly bizarre approach here, calling for a show trial of climate science. Perhaps Kovacs and other officials at the U.S. Chamber believe that the rest of the business world shares their extremist views. After all, U.S. corporations continue to fund their multi-million-dollar lobbying against health care and energy reform.

It’s also possible this is an attempt to disrupt the effort to fight global warming with a culture war, tying the science of climate change to fundamentalists’ unease with evolution. Conservative activists have already made the connection. “It’s still a theory,” a town hall protester confronted Rep. Mike Castle (D-DE) after he supported climate legislation in June. “So is Darwin’s theory of evolution! And yet we have the audacity to say global warming is accurate, it’s more than a theory?”

There aren’t many natural parallels between the physics of greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels and the biology of natural selection, but the American conservative movement depends on the cozy relationship between oil and the Christian right. It seems like a high-risk strategy to convince Americans that God means for us to pollute His creation on behalf of oil and coal tycoons. But when reality is not on your side, there’s not much else left.

Two years ago, however, when President Bush was still nominating NLRB members, the Chamber delivered a very different letter to senators:

[A]n open and honest debate over the merits of Board decisions is a healthy exercise and should be encouraged. however, in recent years, we have seen a disturbing trend in the tone of the debate. Instead of disagreement, we have ad hominem attacks, instead of criticism, hyperbole, and instead of reasoned discussion, vitriolic rhetoric. Compounding this are reports based on shoddy research and half-truths that have been relied on by policy-makers, including members of this committee, in attacking the Board and its decision.

A month later, when President Bush announced that he was renominating labor-busting attorney Robert Batista to Chair the NLRB, the Chamber repeated these exact words, claiming that Batista’s critics were simply “demonizing” his record as Chair.

Few people have done more to undermine workers than Chairman Batista.  To give just one particularly egregious example, in a case called Oakwood Healthcare Batista stripped millions of American workers of their right to unionize by holding that an employee who provides even minimal direction to their co-workers can be classified as a “supervisor” (The right of actual managers to organize is not protected under federal labor law).  According to the Board’s two dissenting members, Batista’s decision could leave 23.3% of the workforce unable to unionize by the year 2012, even though none of Batista’s newly-minted “supervisors” enjoy any of the privileges normally associated with management.

Rather than pretend that they are the guardians of discourse when President Bush is in office and the defenders of reason now that he is not, the Chamber needs to simply admit that their guy lost the last election, and elections have consequences.  One of those consequences will be that an actual union lawyer will get a single seat on the nation’s most important adjudicator of labor disputes.  President Bush got to stack the NLRB with anti-worker union busters when he was in office.  Now that he is out of office, the Chamber will have to find a new way to break up unions.

Madam chair, that is condenscending [sic] to me. I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me. . . .

All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take — I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that. You’re quoting some other black man — why don’t you quote some other Asian or some — I mean, you’re being racial here. And I think you’re getting on a path here that’s going to explode, in the Post. . . .

We’ve been looking at energy policy since 1996. And we are referring to the experts, regardless of their color. And for someone to tell me — an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army — that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in here. This has nothing to do with the NAACP, and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce! We’re talking about energy. And that — that road the chair went down, I think is God awful.

Watch the exchange:

Alford, whose organization has received at least $275,000 $350,000 from ExxonMobil, was invited by the Republican members to testify. He purported to have “a deep understanding of small and minority-owned businesses” and spoke on behalf of the “black community” in his opening statement. He cited a flawed economic analysis of Waxman-Markey commissioned by his organization that estimates extreme costs for reducing our dependence on coal and oil.

As Sen. Boxer noted, it seems “relevant” that other organizations with “a deep understanding” of the “black community,” such as NAACP and 100 Black Men of Atlanta, see the threat of global warming and the opportunity in a clean energy future.

Later in the hearing, Alford argued, “Let me speak for the African-American community, because I am African American.”

“Citing a new study by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri,” Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) today warned of the “disastrous effect” clean energy legislation would have on Missouri farmers. Using data from CRA International, FAPRI found that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act “will cost the average Missouri farmer an additional $11,000 a year in 2020 and more than $30,000 a year by 2050.” During an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on climate legislation and the agriculture sector, Bond claimed:

Missouri farms will face tens of thousands of dollars each year in new, higher energy costs from the House cap and trade bill.

This study is a classic example of “garbage in, garbage out.” FAPRI itself concedes some of the limitations of its study, which “hinges directly on the energy price effects” predicted by CRA International in its May 2009 study prepared for the National Black Chamber of Commerce, an ExxonMobil-funded offshoot of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Sen. Bond specifically pointed FAPRI to the CRA study in his request for an analysis of possible impacts on Missouri farmers.

CRA has a history of flawed work, grossly overestimating the costs of compliance with pollution standards. In 2008 it did an analysis of some of the economic impacts from the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute. Members of the electric utility lobbying group subsequently had to ask for revisions to assumptions used by CRA.

“This report is not a full analysis of the impact of H.R. 2454 on Missouri crop producers,” the FAPRI report’s introduction admits. The FAPRI study does not consider the positive economic impact on Missouri farmers of selling carbon offsets under Waxman-Markey, nor does it include possible gains from biofuels production. Under Waxman-Markey farmers can also take advantage of energy efficiency credits to improve their bottom line.

In the 2009 study used as the basis for the FAPRI report, CRA estimates electricity rates will rise by 16 percent by 2020. An EPA study of Waxman-Markey concluded that consumer utility spending, when the benefits of efficiency measures are included, would be about 7% lower in 2020. A separate analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that Missouri households would save $6.32 a month by 2020 under Waxman-Markey.

In a separate analysis of the impacts of Waxman-Markey on farmers, the head of Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development wrote that “the negative impacts on agriculture will be relatively small.” According to the Des Moines Register’s Green Fields blog, director Bruce Babcock predicted the production cost increase for soybean and corn farmers would be $4.52 an acre.

The FAPRI study also fails to consider the costs to farmers of inaction on climate change, which numerous studies have shown will be significant.

Last month’s comprehensive report on the impacts of climate change by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, for example, predicted that U.S. farmers will face daunting challenges in a warming world. They include increasing downpours, floods, droughts, and crop damage from insects and diseases:

Even moderate increases in temperature will decrease yields of corn, wheat, sorghum, bean, rice, cotton and peanut crops.

Farmers are already paying some of the costs of climate change. A 2000 study by the Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment showed that extreme weather events have “caused severe crop damage and have exacted a significant economic toll for U.S. farmers over the past 20 years.”

No better example of this can be found than the Environmental Protection Agency’s April finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. It turns out that when the EPA issued their finding about the impact of greenhouse gases, they didn’t tell the whole story. They routinely ignored relevant, credible scientific information that contradicted their findings, including information generated by the agency’s own staff. Cherry-picking only the evidence that bolsters your claim is the opposite of scientific integrity, transparency, and openness. . . The wrong way would be to impose barely debated, ineffective, and burdensome new regulations based on shaky, selective data.

Kovacs is alluding to work of Alan Carlin, an economist for EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics. Carlin had plagiarized arguments from right-wing blogs that the world’s climate scientists are wrong about global warming. The right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute promoted Carlin’s report and the false story that his work was being unfairly suppressed. CBS News and Fox News then pushed Carlin’s tale of woe.

By asserting that the ravings of oil-funded climate deniers like Ken Gregory, Pat Michaels, and Chip Knappenberger are “relevant, credible scientific information,” Kovacs is embarassing himself and the Chamber, supposedly “the world’s largest business federation” and the “voice of business.” This reactionary behavior is leading forward-thinking corporations like Nike and Johnson & Johnson to break with the Chamber, and support Mindy Lubber’s attempt to bring American business into the 21st century.