Josh HarkinsonOct. 13, 2009 6:48 PM | Scheduled to publish Wed Oct. 14, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
Leaders of some of the largest urban chambers of commerce are distancing themselves from the US Chamber in the wake of recent controversies over its inflated membership numbers, undemocratic structure, and right-wing policy positions. In recent interviews, they strongly disagreed with the national group's positions on health care and climate change and disputed its implicit claim to speak for their members.
"They don’t represent me," says Mark Jaffe, CEO of the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, which is a dues-paying member of the national group. He added that the Chamber's "parochial interests"—large corporations that control its self-appointed board of directors—"are well represented."
Jaffe also scoffed at the US Chamber's oft-repeated claim to "represent 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions." Yesterday Mother Jonesquestioned the number, which appears to be based on the idea that the Chamber "represents" the members of the New York Chamber and similar local groups. That number of members would comprise more than half of the 5.7 million employers in the United States. "They are playing games" with their numbers, Jaffe said. "They don’t have half the businesses in America as registered, dues-paying members."
The New York Chamber has no plans to leave the national Chamber (its annual membership dues are only $1000 per year), yet neither is Jaffe happy with the group. "We get involved in some of their activities," like working to modernize airports, he said, "but we don’t agree with all of their principles either, like their position on health care. You have to be selfish, blind, or stupid not to want everybody to be required to have health care."
Jaffe’s objections to the US Chamber’s policies were echoed by Rob Black, vice-president of public policy for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. "We take a fundamentally different approach than the US Chamber," he said, adding that while the national Chamber opposes the Waxman-Markey climate bill, "we support a market-driven cap-and-trade system. It’s good for business, but it’s also a good way to try to spur innovation and new technologies."
The Chamber of Commerce says it speaks for 3 million businesses. That just doesn't add up—we did the math.
Josh HarkinsonOct. 13, 2009 6:00 AM
The nation's largest business lobby may be much smaller than it appears. A review of archival press releases suggests that the US Chamber of Commerce—which will not disclose the names of its members—has vastly overstated its size in recent years, helping to make its controversial positions on health care and climate change look like a consensus of American businesses.
In testimony before Congress, statements to the press, and on its website, the Chamber claims to represent "3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions." In reality, the number is probably closer to 200,000.
In February 1997, the Chamber’s membership figure mysteriously jumped from 200,000 to 3 million, where it has remained ever since. The first use of the bigger number came less than two weeks before Chamber president Richard Lesher retired, soon to be succeeded by current president Tom Donohue. In congressional testimony and a press release, the Chamber suddenly described itself as representing "an underlying membership of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region."
The term "underlying membership" was meant to convey, subtly, that most Chamber "members" were at best loosely affiliated with the group. Since then, the Chamber has come to completely ignore this distinction, but not before a July 2001 press release touting one of its many corporate partnerships explained:
The United States Chamber of Commerce is comprised of 150,000 companies, 2,800 state and local chambers and 850 trade associations. More than 96 percent of members are small businesses with 100 or fewer employees. The 2,800 state and local chambers represent more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region.
A spokesman for the US Chamber did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.
By counting the memberships of 2,800 local chambers as its own, the US Chamber is being deeply misleading. Unlike many true grassroots organizations, there is usually little or no relationship between the local chambers and the national organization. The Chamber "is not a governing body, chartering agent, or a regulatory agency for chambers of commerce," its website explains, "and we have no say in how chambers decide to run themselves." Nor do most local chambers have any say in the national group. They do not get to cast votes for the Chamber’s leadership, which is beholden to a board of directors that is exclusively selected by other sitting board members, most of whom represent large corporations. Only one of the board’s 118 members represents a local chamber of commerce.
Apparently, the Chamber’s claim to "represent" the 3 million individual members of local chambers is solely based on the fact that those local chambers are members of the national group—even though many of those chambers' individual members do not have a direct relationship with the national body. To get an idea of the tenuousness of this connection, consider the American Highway Users Alliance. Like the Chamber, the AHUA has worked to undermine climate legislation, and counts the American Automobile Association as a member, which itself has 51 million members. The AHUA has never pretended to speak for those 51 million drivers.
Faced with a wave of bad publicity over his organization's obstructionist role in the climate debate, US Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue is fighting back. "We don't have regrets about our position, and we're not going to change it," he told reporters yesterday. The National Journal also published a letter from Donohue in which he told Chamber members that he wasn't opposed to tackling climate change and urged them to stand united for a business-friendly solution. But many of the claims he and other Chamber officials are making are contradicted by interviews with Chamber board members and its own lobbying record.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s executive vice-president for government affairs, said that its climate policy—which led Nike and Apple to quit the group—came out of its energy and environment committee. But that assertion was flatly contradicted by the committee chair, Donald Sterhan, in an interview with Mother Jones last week. "There was no vote," Sterhan said, describing the committee's role. "It's just a discussion about the concerns, the risks, the potential threats. It was really more of an information discussion." He added that "there was no action taken" on the committee to approve any of the Chamber's positions on climate change.
Josten also said that Nike was the only Chamber member to question how its policies were made But according to a spokesman for a company that participated on the Chamber’s energy committee, several companies sought a forum to change the Chamber’s approach and were rebuffed. (He requested that his company not be named because it was concerned about the Chamber's response to its criticism.) Members of the energy committee that questioned the Chamber's climate stance "were told that basically this was not the forum to do it," he says. "There's basically no outlet for changing the policy."
With the US Chamber of Commerce weakened by recent defections over its climate policy, its foes are moving in for the kill. Or at least milking the whole thing for some laughs. From the SEIU comes this tale of thwarted romance:
Amid all the recent headlines about the US Chamber of Commerce, it's easy to forget that it does much more than work to derail climate legislation. The nation's largest business lobby, with more than 3 million member companies, takes positions on everything from financial regulation to judicial nominations to health care. That's why some companies that disagree with the Chamber's antiregulatory climate stance say they're sticking with the group. Their prepared statements start with some variation of: "We don't always agree with the Chamber, but. . ."
To be sure, a company that has never staked much of its profits or reputation on the environment can reasonably claim that the Chamber's dirty behavior isn't a relationship breaker. But what about companies that manufacture solar panels or took out full-page ads in the green issue of Vanity Fair? Belonging to the Chamber would seem to undermine their bottom lines, or at least pull the rug out from under their green marketing campaigns.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, at least 18 remaining members of the Chamber’s board publicly support federal climate policy. Bruce Freed, the president of the Center for Public Accountability, a shareholder activism group, is urging them to distance themselves from the Chamber. "Where there is a fundamental disagreement with company values, with company business strategies," he says, "companies really do need to act on that. Its a matter of companies holding their trade associations accountable."
Here are six "green" companies that might be hurting themselves by remaining members of the nation's biggest stick in the mud on climate change: