What exactly is the Chamber of Commerce? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 10-22-2010, 12:06 AM

Is it a sort of franchise opportunity with a national headquarters? I always thought it was just a generic principle that every community utilized because it makes sense. But now we see this large national organization, referred to as the "Chamber of Commerce," with deep pockets for campaign donations.

A web search on the topic was not rewarding. Better pack a lunch and start again.

Jim B. · #2 10-22-2010, 12:12 AM

It is *exactly* the same thing I call my ex wife's lawyer who is from Mexico:

A piñata full of LIES.

layback40 · #3 10-22-2010, 01:50 AM

Its a bit of an 'old boys club', normally many of the local biz owners in a town get together & form a club that tries to improve their situation. Then all these clubs are a part of a national group.

compress ignite · #4 10-22-2010, 04:50 AM

In the U.S. the Chamber is basically an un-indicted co-conspirator of the "K"
street lobbyists.

Kuan · #5 10-22-2010, 07:22 AM

Basically a local business lobbying group.

raymr · #6 10-22-2010, 12:54 PM

It should be Chamber O. Commerce, since the US Supreme Court recognizes the chamber as an individual person.

aklim · #7 10-22-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

It should be Chamber O. Commerce, since the US Supreme Court recognizes the chamber as an individual person.

Can you explain the difference pre-decision vs post decision? IIRC, only the timeline of contribution changed slightly but I would like to know more besides the catch phrase.

aklim · #8 10-22-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

Basically a local business lobbying group.

Pretty much. They also do "Certificate of Origin" papers

hill · #9 10-22-2010, 05:22 PM

On the national level it is a shill for large coporations, billionaires, unions and Wall street. This year 45 personal donors are giving more than 67M.

Money chase: The Chamber's donorsThe New York Times front-pages, "Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation's financial regulations. Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber's money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall's Congressional elections."

Meanwhile, the biggest outside spender this cycle? It's AFSCME. The Wall Street Journal: "The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending."

kerry · #10 10-22-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill

On the national level it is a shill for large coporations, billionaires, unions and Wall street. This year 45 personal donors are giving more than 67M. "

Corporations and unions????? Has this person been diagnosed schizophrenic?

aklim · #11 10-22-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Corporations and unions????? Has this person been diagnosed schizophrenic?

Why? Think about this. They take money from everybody so why not both?

hill · #12 10-22-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Corporations and unions????? Has this person been diagnosed schizophrenic?

They can hide sources of money now. The Cartels will be next.

cmac2012 · #13 10-22-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

Basically a local business lobbying group.

I had always thought it was a local sort of operation but apparently there's a greater power that binds them nationally, "power" being the operative word.

cmac2012 · #14 10-22-2010, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill

Meanwhile, the biggest outside spender this cycle? It's AFSCME. The Wall Street Journal: "The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending."

This is where I really question the value of a union. David Brooks makes a good case in a recent column that govt. employees unions might not be a good idea:

October 12, 2010
The Paralysis of the State - DAVID BROOKS

Sometimes a local issue perfectly illuminates a larger national problem. Such is the case with the opposition of the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, to construction of a new tunnel between his state and New York.

Christie argues that a state that is currently facing multibillion-dollar annual deficits cannot afford a huge new spending project that is already looking to be $5 billion overbudget. His critics argue that this tunnel is exactly the sort of infrastructure project that New Jersey needs if it’s to prosper in the decades ahead.

Both sides are right. But what nobody seems to be asking is: Why are important projects now unaffordable? Decades ago, when the federal and state governments were much smaller, they had the means to undertake gigantic new projects, like the Interstate Highway System and the space program. But now, when governments are bigger, they don’t.

The answer is what Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal once called demosclerosis. Over the past few decades, governments have become entwined in a series of arrangements that drain money from productive uses and direct it toward unproductive ones.

New Jersey can’t afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state’s employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company. These benefits costs are rising by 16 percent a year.

New York City has to strain to finance its schools but must support 10,000 former cops who have retired before age 50.

California can’t afford new water projects, but state cops often receive 90 percent of their salaries when they retire at 50. The average corrections officer there makes $70,000 a year in base salary and $100,000 with overtime (California spends more on its prison system than on higher education).

States across the nation will be paralyzed for the rest of our lives because they face unfunded pension obligations that, if counted accurately, amount to $2 trillion — or $87,000 per plan participant.

All in all, governments can’t promote future prosperity because they are strangling on their own self-indulgence.

Daniel DiSalvo, a political scientist at the City College of New York, has a superb survey of the problem in the new issue of National Affairs. DiSalvo notes that nationally, state and local workers earn on average $14 more per hour in wages and benefits than their private sector counterparts. A city like Buffalo has as many public workers as it did in 1950, even though it has lost half its population.

These arrangements grew gradually. Through much of the 20th century, staunch liberals like Franklin Roosevelt opposed public sector unions. George Meany of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. argued that it is “impossible to bargain collectively with government.”

Private sector managers have to compete in the marketplace, so they have an incentive to push back against union requests. Ideally, some balance is found between the needs of workers and companies. Government managers possess a monopoly on their services and have little incentive to resist union demands. It would only make them unpopular.

In addition, public sector unions can use political power to increase demand for their product. DiSalvo notes that between 1989 and 2004, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was the biggest spender in American politics, giving $40 million to federal candidates. The largest impact is on low-turnout local elections. The California prison guard union recently sent a signal by spending $200,000 to defeat a state assemblyman who had tried to reduce costs.

In states across the country, elected leaders raise state employee salaries in the fat years and then are careful to placate the unions by raising future pension benefits in the lean ones. Even if cost-conscious leaders are elected, they find their hands tied by pension commitments and employee contracts.

The end result is sclerotic government. Many of us would be happy to live with a bigger version of 1950s government: one that ran surpluses and was dexterous enough to tackle long-term problems as they arose. But we don’t have that government. We have an immobile government that is desperately overcommitted in all the wrong ways.

This situation, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, has been the Democratic Party’s epic failure. The party believes in the positive uses of government. But if you want the country to share that belief, you have to provide a government that is nimble, tough-minded and effective. That means occasionally standing up to the excessive demands of public employee unions. Instead of standing up to those demands, the party has become captured by the unions. Liberal activism has become paralyzed by its own special interests.

The antigovernment-types perpetually cry less, less, less. The loudest liberals cry more, more, more. Someday there will be a political movement that is willing to make choices, that is willing to say “this but not that.”

Someday.