U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Google Becoming One of the Most Technologically Invasive and Politically Powerful Companies

, , , ,

Most of us use Google products on a daily basis and are familiar with the company’s powerful email and Internet search services. But these days, there is a lot more to Google’s technological operations — and they come with myriad new ways to collect our information. Now the company that used Street View cars to collect unsuspecting people’s information, and received the Federal Trade Commission’s largest civil penalty ever for misleadingly tracking Safari users, is reaching new levels of political power.

A new Public Citizen report, “Mission Creep-y,” explores Google’s accruing power, both in terms of personal data collection, and federal and state government influence, raising the question of whether it could become too powerful to be held accountable.

Key findings about Google’s growing political power:

  • Over the first three quarters of 2014, Google ranked first among all corporations in lobbying spending, according to OpenSecrets.org, and is on pace to spend $18.2 million on federal lobbying this year. In fact, it has spent $1 million more on lobbying than PhRMA, the powerful trade association of the pharmaceutical industry.
  • Since 2012, no company has spent more money on federal lobbying than Google.
  • Of 102 lobbyists the company has hired or retained in 2014, 81 previously held government jobs. Meanwhile, a steady stream of Google employees has been appointed to high-ranking government jobs – an indication of the company’s growing influence in national affairs.
  • Google’s political action committee (PAC) spent $1.61 million this year, according to Federal Election Commission records. That surpasses, for the first time, PAC expenditures by Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs.
  • Google funds about 140 trade associations and other nonprofits across the ideological spectrum – including some working in issue areas relevant to Google’s practices on privacy, political spending, antitrust and more.

More

House deregulation zealots push sham “jobs” bill that won’t create a single job

, , ,

Congressmembers on both sides of the aisle yesterday joined forces to pass the so-called “Jobs for America Act” (H.R. 4).

In the vote, 221 Republicans and 32 Democrats matched the absurd anti-regulatory rhetoric of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other Big Business groups with absurd anti-regulatory policy. The bill contains provisions designed to stifle, stall, shrink and stop safeguards the public relies on and includes the text of familiar deregulatory bills like the Regulatory Accountability Act and the REINS Act (which the House already has voted on). If enacted, H.R. 4 represents a green light allowing reckless corporations to do simply whatever they want with as little oversight as possible.

Big Business groups have been making hyperbolic claims about regulations killing jobs – and the inverse claim that gutting regulation will create jobs – for decades. The predictions never come true.

Consider the following examples from Public Citizen’s recent report:

  • 1974: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration bans the carcinogen, vinyl chloride. The plastics industry claimed that the OSHA regulation would kill 2.2 million jobs. Those claims were proven completely false. A new way to manufacture vinyl chloride was developed within a year without any jobs lost.
  • 1975: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration increases the fuel efficiency standard. Industry reports warned that 1.5 million jobs would be lost. By 1985, automakers had met the higher standard without losing any jobs.
  • 1990: The Environmental Protection Agency sets new pollution standards under the Clean Air Act. Business Groups responded with doomsday hysterics, claiming up to 2 million jobs would be lost. Those were proven entirely wrong. Instead, according to the Investor’s Business Daily, “Pollution has been falling across the board for decades, even while the nation’s population and economy have expanded.”
  • 1995: EPA removes lead from gasoline. Monsanto claimed 43 million jobs would be killed. The removal of lead is now considered one of the biggest public health success stories while gas prices did not dramatically increase and no jobs were lost.

More

Breaking: Public Citizen and The US Chamber of Commerce Agree on Something! (Sort of)

, , , , ,

The US Chamber of Commerce just published another blog post slamming an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rulemaking that could clarify the rules for nonprofits and reduce the influence of undisclosed political spending (like the more than $35 million the Chamber spent in 2012). The Chamber points out that vague rules are bad rules, and that the IRS’s first draft of proposed rules was deeply flawed. We agree!

The IRS also agreed that the proposed rules needed revision — that’s why the IRS is revising the rules and planning to reissue a new draft in early 2015.

The Chamber piece points out that unclear rules can have a chilling effect on democratic participation, which is precisely why tax law experts formed the Bright Lines Project five years ago (full disclosure, now housed at Public Citizen). The current rules that define political activity for nonprofits are based on the vague notion that IRS agents will be able to evaluate all the “facts and circumstances” surrounding each case to determine if something is political or not. Better would be bright-line definition for political activity to ensure that nonprofits know what they can and can’t do when it comes to political activity.

We agree with the Chamber that the first draft of the rules didn’t quite get there, and would have prevented nonprofits from participating in our democracy in ways that should be encouraged (like hosting debates and holding get-out-the-vote drives). So we’re glad to see the IRS taking another crack at fixing this important problem with the existing system. More

Earlier and more often: The U.S. Chamber ramps up its campaign spending to new levels

, ,

For more than a decade, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been known for its sizable lobbying expenditures, but now it’s embarking on what CNN is calling “the most aggressive political cycle in its 102-year history.”

The world’s largest business association reported spending $35 million on behalf of candidates in 2012, likely spending $50 million total, including unreported expenditures. So far, during the 2014 election cycle, the Chamber has spent about $17 million on U.S. Senate and U.S. House races, getting involved early, in primaries, to an extent it hasn’t done previously. It’s promising to spend at least $50 million once again in this cycle. Given that the Chamber’s membership is secret, these tens of millions come from corporate sources that are mostly unknown – though we do know that most of the Chamber’s donors are large.

Unlike its more moderate incarnations in decades past, the Chamber now strongly favors conservatives. As CNN notes, the Chamber this cycle has endorsed 258 Republican candidates and just two Democratic candidates, though it says more of the latter are on the way. Six years ago, it endorsed 38 Democrats. More

Survey says: Small businesses overwhelmingly support climate action, contrary to the U.S. Chamber’s positions

, , , , , , ,

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its relatively modest carbon emission limits proposal, preemptively opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it was reported that many Chamber members and utilities didn’t actually stand with the Chamber on its opposition to climate progress.

A new survey of small businesses, “Small Business Owners’ Views on Climate & Energy Policy Reform,” indicates the U.S. Chamber is even more isolated in its regressive anti-science position. Especially considering the Chamber’s frequent attempts to claim small businesses as a part of its constituency, the clear call by small business owners to address climate change, evidenced in this report, is remarkable.

Among the major findings:

  • 87 percent of business owners named consequences of climate change as potentially harmful to their businesses;
  • 64 percent of businesses believe government regulation is needed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants; and
  • 57 percent of businesses said that the biggest carbon emitters should make the biggest reductions in carbon emissions and bear most of the costs of reduction efforts.

The findings came from a scientific, national phone survey of 555 small business owners (2 to 99 employees). Significantly, more respondents identified as Republican or independent-leaning Republican (43 percent total) than as being or leaning toward any other group. The report was produced by the American Sustainable Business Council. More

Load More