October 22, 2009

Chamber Says Misleading Membership Claims “Hardly Our Fault.” Really?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In a story today in E&E News, a respected environmental news service that is often reprinted in the New York Times, the US Chamber of Commerce remained on the defensive about its claim to represent “3 million” members. E&E reported (sub req’d) the Chamber’s recent assertion that it has always used two membership numbers: its 300,000 direct members and its 3 million “federation members” (a number that includes members of local chambers who have no direct ties to the national group). “This often does get reported in the press as 3 million members without qualification,” Chamber blogger Brad Peck told E&E. “That is hardly our fault.”

But Peck’s statement appears to be contradicted by a recent quote from the Chamber’s spokesman. “We have over 3 million members, and we don’t comment on the comings and goings of our membership,” spokesman Eric Wholschlegel told the New York Times last month in a story about the utility PG&E’s departure from the Chamber over its climate policy. The Chamber also does not cite the smaller membership number on its website or many (if not all) of its press releases. And its written materials typically do not explain the meaning of the “3 million” number, failing to use the term “federation members,” let alone clarify what it means.

In the E&E piece, the Chamber also lashed out at my reporting of the issue, saying that it “has crossed into advocacy and should be treated as such.” E&E published its piece a day after I sent an open letter to one of its reporters questioning his continued citation of the Chamber’s “3 million members.” If advocacy is the same thing as requesting that other media outlets report the facts,  then I am guilty as charged. Or maybe Peck considers the choice of which number to use an ideological issue. If that’s the case, then E&E and the Associated Press are to the right of the Wall Street Journal, which reports the Chamber’s membership as 300,000.

UPDATE: Today, James Surowiecki of the New Yorker strongly sided with my assertion that the correct membership number is around 300,000.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate