chamber.350.orgThe U.S. Chamber Doesn't Speak For Me

What does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have to do with Climate Change? More Chamber FactsThe US Chamber is controlled by a handful of dirty energy companies and opposes every single effort to curb climate pollution. About About the Campaign Frequently Asked Questions Latest Updates Contact Us Businesses How to Get Your Business Involved Directory of Business Sign-Ons Large Allied Companies Join the Sustainable Business Movement Resources The BIG Infographic Videos and Reports Statements of Dissent US Chamber of Secrets Get Local How to get your local chamber on board Complete Recruitment Toolkit Get Local Media Press Add a photo of your business! Click here to find out how. So far, 6254 businesses have signed on, and 56 local chambers of commerce have made statements Latest Updates March 11, 2013 US Chamber teams up with Big Oil to promote pipeline Yesterday, The Hill reported that the US Chamber of Commerce is teaming up with the American Petroleum Institute to run a grassroots” project to combat misinformation” about the Keystone XL pipeline. Putting API, Big Oil’s front group aside, the US Chamber of Commerce has its own misinformation problems. Let’s review the numbers: The US Chamber functions like a beltway consulting firm, hired out by big corporations–it spent $132,000,000 on lobbying and electoral battles in 2010. The US Chamber is anti-science: of the $32,000,000 the Chamber spent on the 2010 midterm elections, 94% went to climate change deniers. The Chamber is consistently on the wrong side of history, lobbying against engagement in WWII, against the Civil Rights Act, against the Americans with Disabilities Act and and against the Clean Air Act. The US Chamber has a crisis of legitimacy. While it claims to represent 3,000,000 businesses, only 200,000 are involved in the Chamber in any significant way, and 16 multinational corporations provide the vast majority of its funding. This is why over 6200 businesses, many of them small, and 53 local chambers of commerce, have signed on to the US Chamber Doesn’t Speak for me” campaign. While the US Chamber of Commerce teams up with Big Oil over an export pipeline that would bisect our country, these businesses are committed to a planet safe from catastrophic climate change. May 29, 2012 End of the Charade” The U.S. Chamber will no longer be able to publish "issue ads" like the one pictured here without disclosing its donors. In an editorial published yesterday in the NY Times , the author brought to light an important question: Will the recent decision by a federal judge to require that donors for political issue ads” (like those targeting health care reform) be disclosed finally compel the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to reveal the names of its donors? Not surprisingly, the answer is no, though there is a silver lining. The U.S. Chamber, which spends more on highly partisan political ads than any other organization, will still be able to keep its donors a secret by airing traditional independent” political ads as opposed to issue” ads. The good news is, now that the Chamber will be sticking to ads that say Vote for Congressman A” or Vote Against Senator B”, it will be easier to understand where its political loyalties lie. Last year, the Chamber spent $33 million during the 2010 mid-term elections (almost entirely on Republican candidates), yet it claims to be a non-partisan advocate for small businesses. During the 2012 election season, the Chamber is expected to spend much more, but this new disclosure ruling marks the end of the charade for the U.S. Chamber. When the chamber is overtly advocating the election of Republicans — rather than hiding behind phony issue ads — it will be impossible to deny that it has become a very well-financed arm of the party. And companies that contribute to the chamber will be unable to claim that they are paying dues to an independent business league.” April 30, 2012 Chasing Power Following the announcement last week that the Aspen Chamber Resort Associated has decided to drop its membership with the U.S. Chamber over its position on climate change, the following blog has been submitted to tell the behind-the-scenes story of the effort that went into this huge victory: You’re thistle in the garden patch…” an Aspen rancher used to tell his daughter. And you’ll outlast ‘em all.” Through similar prickly technique, another domino in the US Chamber battle fell on Tuesday when the Aspen Chamber Resort Association announced that it would end membership in the US Chamber because its archaic” stance on climate policy didn’t dovetail with the goals of a ski town. Many towns and businesses have dropped the Chamber over the last few years, and from the outside, it looks like these moves just happen. But of course that not true—even thistle fights an uphill battle. In the case of Aspen, the decision took more than two years, and was the product of multiple prongs of attack—some respectful and well intentioned; some aggressive and misguided. It involved civil discussion, outrage, fury, fights played out in the newspaper and in board rooms. The effort caused some participants—on both sides of the issue—to age in dog years, and others many sleepless nights and blood pressure episodes. A letter writing campaign at the national level, which blossomed through the action of multiple nonprofits, brought the issue onto the community’s radar, and probably helped push the local papers to editorialize about the topic. But it also mostly pissed off generally sympathetic local chamber board members who didn’t want to be told what to do by outsiders from Portland and Boston. In the end, what worked best was what you might call Aspen casual.” Eyeball to eyeball conversations among constituents—supporters and opponents, board members and elected official, that started with a request for a personal meeting—not a phone call or an email exchange or a letter to the paper—and began with an open question, and the patience to listen: Tell me what you make of this thing.” It required swallowing one’s righteousness and trying to inhabit the opposition’s mindset. The primary obstacle early on, as is often the case, is what I call the supermarket problem: given a choice between an action that might help save the world, or facing the awkward social consequences of that decision (a nasty encounter with an opponent in the cereal aisle in the supermarket) most humans will choose to avoid that encounter, despite the asymmetry of the choices. After all the work, it would be nice to proclaim a great victory, and one is inclined to do so. Aspen, after all, is an iconic ski town, a press magnet, and host to hugely influential visitors and residents. It’s entirely possible Aspen can create a domino effect among winter sports communities, and that coverage of the resignation will be both durable and influential. But it’s also possible, even likely, that Aspen is just a gnat to the U.S. Chamber, which is mostly funded by a few big corporations and unapologetically opposed to real action on climate. They likely feel well rid of this pest. The vast machinery of monied politics crushes forward regardless of what silly little Aspen thinks. The seemingly unstoppable onslaught of climate change and what we’ve done to our democracy, our climate, and our humanity often makes me wonder what we have become as citizens, parents, and human beings. It gives me the discomfiting sense that we may have lost touch with the things we care about most: our children, and our neighbors. As a part of this group, in slack moments of many days I feel that, to quote Bob Dylan, I can’t hear the echo of my footsteps, or remember the sound of my own name.” But what the human interaction and intestinal fortitude required by our local campaign taught us—taught me—was more valuable, perhaps, than what it told the U.S. Chamber. It required that we check our passions to allow a conversation. It forced human engagement. All of us involved in this...