Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 19, 2009

CIRCUMVENTING THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.... The fall has not been especially kind to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's lost some high-profile corporate members; its membership ranks have been exposed as exaggerated; and its leadership has been embarrassed on national television. Eliot Spitzer called the Chamber "wrong on virtually every major public policy issue of the past decade," and quite a few relevant players found the observation reasonable.

Matters may get worse still for the Chamber of Commerce. The White House, which has waited for the Chamber to begin playing a more constructive role, has decided to pursue a different approach going forward.

The White House and congressional Democrats are working to marginalize the Chamber of Commerce -- the powerful business lobby opposed to many of President Barack Obama's first-year priorities -- by going around the group and dealing directly with the CEOs of major U.S. corporations.

Since June, senior White House officials have met directly with executives from more than 55 companies, including Chamber members Pfizer, Eastman Kodak and IBM.

"We prefer the approach -- particularly in this climate -- where the actual people who are on the front lines, running businesses, trying to create jobs, come and advise us on policy," senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told POLITICO in a not-so-subtle effort to portray the Chamber as out of touch with business reality.

Chamber officials say the White House is scapegoating the Chamber and other trade associations as a way of dividing the business community, a move that could help the administration made headway on health care reform, climate change legislation and regulatory reform.

To a certain extent, there's something to this -- the administration does have an interest in driving a wedge within the Chamber's membership. With many in the business community sympathetic to the White House's agenda, and many more finding new opportunities for profit in the changing policy landscape, it only makes sense for the administration to prevent a monolithic "Big Business" from derailing its agenda. We're already seeing this start to play out on energy policy, where producers have begun "battling one another."

Historically, the Chamber of Commerce has served as something of a gatekeeper: if powerful policymakers wanted to make headway with business leaders, they had to go through the Chamber to get to them. The White House prefers to simply go around the gatekeeper and engage the community directly.

Since this summer, senior administration officials have held at least 11 meetings with CEOs and executives from more than 55 companies, according to data provided by the White House. The sessions usually involve half-a-dozen attendees representing companies in all different fields, from finance to pharmaceutical, soft drinks and real estate. Job creation, tax policy, climate change and health care reform are discussed.

"The intent there is simply to make sure we are getting accurate, timely feedback from the wide cross-section of the private sector and that we aren't going to therefore rely solely on the Chamber or any other group," explained Jarrett. "[These CEOs] are like ambassadors to other businesses."

Instead of letting the Chamber serve as the gateway to business leaders, the administration is building gateways of its own. It is a potentially huge structural shift for the nexus of politics and business.

For its part, the Chamber has crafted a $100 million "free enterprise" campaign, which is principally about defeating regulatory reform.

Valerie Jarrett talked a bit about a conversation she had with Chamber president Tom Donohue about the campaign.

"He came in and we chatted and he said, 'I think that, for example, your financial regulatory reform might have a chilling effect on business growth.' So I said well you supported the Recovery Act, yes. You support the federal taxpayer subsidy going to the banks, yes. You supported the subsidy going to the auto industry, yes. So now suddenly you want the free market system? I couldn't reconcile those two positions."

"He said, 'Well, I don't think we need those checks and balances.' And I said yes you do, we have concrete evidence that you do because without them the taxpayers ended up carrying the burden."

Good for the White House.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

It's good to see some of the Chamber's union busting divide and conquer tactics used against it. Give em' hell Jarrett

Posted by: Winkandanod on October 19, 2009 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

And it's not all that different from the Republican approach to unions--when GOP Presidents or other leaders wanted to see what sort of labor backing they could get, they never hesitated to go around the AFL-CIO and to leaders of individual unions (most notably the Teamsters, but others as well).

Posted by: Steven J Berke on October 19, 2009 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Besides trying to neutralize the malignant pro-business nightmare that the Chamber has become. There must be a big program of support to re-establish a robust countervailing sector of organization to combat the nihilism of "the market is god" -- labor, environment, women's rights, consumer safety, etc. etc. etc.

We have a long decline of decency, and common good governing principles, overall with the degradation by ronnie rayguns, and by the scorched earth policies of the BushCo last eight years.

Posted by: neill on October 19, 2009 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

"...as a way of dividing the business community..."

The Chamber itself did that long ago. And I speak as a business person who has listened to their membership pitch and found it, frankly, horrifying.

Posted by: Ducktape on October 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

True Believers, those Chamber of Commerce members-
Business As Usual true believers.

Their motto should be: "No Change we can believe in."


Posted by: anomaly on October 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Hopefully we'll see the death of references to "according to the nonpartisan Chamber of Commerce" as well. The Chamber has been blatantly pro-Republican for as long as I can remember. They are pro-big business only in the short-term sense that Republicans are -- "give us tax and regulation cuts now no matter how disastrous it will be for most businesses in the long run!"

Posted by: Redshift on October 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

It is not necessarily something nefarious for the administration to deal directly with CEO's rather than the CoC. If you are interested in accomplishing something, you go to the people who are actually engaged in doing something, not someone yelling in the bleachers. There is no reason that the administration should even approach the CoC. What have they ever accomplished in their whole existence that amounts to anything?

Posted by: Texas Aggie on October 19, 2009 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Polish the gun with the Chamber then turn it on the to_big_to_fails.

Posted by: Kevin on October 19, 2009 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Good afternoon. The function of science fiction is not always to predict the future but sometimes to prevent it. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Pink toile baby bedding. I found only this - dkny baby bedding. Elysha is a much basic exclusive acne of the exploration, bedding. Bedding, fluoride clients have been finished to korea, the persian gulf, egypt, bosnia and afghanistan. Thanks :o. Liadan from Laos.

Posted by: Liadan on March 12, 2010 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly