The Washington Independent
The Washington Independent

Josten Defends Chamber’s Refusal to Disclose Donors

After some initial reluctance, U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive vice president for government affairs Bruce Josten agreed to sit down with ABC’s Jake Tapper

Hajra Shannon
Last updated: Jul 31, 2020 | Oct 14, 2010

After some initial reluctance, U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive vice president for government affairs Bruce Josten agreed to sit down with ABC’s Jake Tapper yesterday and talk about the accusations that Democrats have leveled against the group regarding its receipt of foreign funds and its unwillingness to disclose its donors for the $75 million it plans to spend during the current midterm elections. Tapper published the whole conversation with Josten, including this response that hints at the Chamber’s rationale for not simply disclosing its donors and clearing the air of any charges:

What this administration wants is a list of who the companies are who are contributors, and we saw last year, Jake, why, when we very publicly ran ads against the Patients Protections and Affordable Care Act, quoting the CBO, quoting the head of CMS, the Centers for Medicare Services, that it would not in fact bend the cost curve down, that it would bend the cost curve up as they testified before the senate finance committee, there was an attempt to try and find out who were the corporations that were contributing to that effort.

When some of those corporate names were divulged, not by us, by others, what did they receive? They received protests, they received threats, they were intimidated, they were harassed, they had to hire additional security, they were recipients of a host of proxies leveled at those companies that had nothing to do with the purpose of those companies. So we know what the purpose here is. It’s to harass and intimidate.

Much like we’ve seen in California with ballot initiatives — when the proponents of ballot initiatives’ names have been divulged to the public — those people were harassed, they were threatened with violence and they were intimidated.

Josten’s response is interesting for how closely it resembles the arguments being made by social issues groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which advocated successfully against same-sex marriage in a number of states, including Maine and California, and is now fighting in the courts to keep the names of the donors to its campaign a secret. NOM — and the group’s Mormon and Catholic Church backers — aren’t exactly enjoying a lot of goodwill from a sizable portion of the electorate for swooping into state races and advocating against gay and lesbian rights, but this is part of the group’s argument. It claims that when donors to Proposition 8 were revealed in California, they faced intense harassment and boycotts by gay rights groups.

The Supreme Court, however, hasn’t been too sympathetic to this line of argument. It’s already ruled in a previous case involving a petition in Washington State that there are laws against intimidation and harassment already on the books, and that participating in the political process requires a degree of thick skin for dealing with those forms of political pushback that don’t cross any legal lines.

When it comes to the Chamber — an association of companies and not people — it’s even harder to imagine the specter of harassment evoking a great deal of sympathy from the average American. What kind of “harassment” should a multinational corporation be shielded from that a citizen who chooses to speak at a public forum should not? Josten himself conjures up a popular Supreme Court case to illuminate the threat of harassment that the Chamber might endure — the NAACP vs. the State of Alabama — but, again, it seems doubtful to me that this kind of analogy won’t throw the ridiculousness of the claim into sharp relief:

But the good government groups know as well as I do, because there’s been studies done on it, with respect to disclosure, that forcing people to comply with disclosure rules in order to exercise their First Amendment, ultimately results in people remaining silent or uninvolved with little or no benefit to the public because it squelches speech.

The seminal Supreme Court case, I would remind your listeners, was NAACP vs. the state of Alabama, in 1953 I believe, when certain people wanted to know who the white Americans that were promoting integration in this country over segregation and out those people to harass them. The Supreme Court decided then. Hell no was the answer.

Those supporting integration in the early 1950s South, however, were facing more than the prospect of a nasty email or the boycott of their hotel chain, however. They were all too often the subject of violent intimidation campaigns, and the suggestion that the Chamber’s corporate donors would face the same treatment seems to undercut, rather than strengthen, the sympathy that Josten is trying to evoke.

Hajra Shannon | Hajra Shannon has been assisting clients with writing difficulties for over four years. She will help with ghost writing, coaching, and ghost editing. Her experience in family science and journalism has provided her with a strong foundation from which to approach a variety of topics. She loves writing resumes for people who are changing professions in particular.


Giffords shooting leads nation to introspection and political finger wagging

In the wake of the shooting in Arizona this weekend that critically injured Rep.

EPA Administrator Addresses Concerns About Oil Spill Waste Management

At a hearing of the national oil spill commission today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson addressed concerns about waste disposal from

E-Verify Mandate Begins Today

The Obama administration today begins implementation of a new mandate to require all federal contractors to check the legal status of their employees to confirm

EPA administrator defends allowing Florida to write its own water pollution rules

The EPA seal (Pic via The Environmental Protection Agency has come under fire for its decision to allow the state of Florida to write its own water pollution rules (known as “numeric nutrient criteria”). EPA Regional Administrator Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming is now firing back, writing that the Agency commends the state Department of Environmental Protection for its draft of a proposed standard. A host of environmental groups filed suit in 2008, seeking to compel the EPA to implement a strict set of water pollution standards in Florida, arguing that the state was in violation of the Clean Water Act.

EPA administrator fires back at critics in op-ed

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (Pic by USACEpublicaffairs, via Flickr) EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson penned a new op-ed for the Los Angeles Times , criticizing House Republicans desperately seeking to undermine the authority of the agency they have dubbed a “job killer.” Arguing that the environment affects red states and blue states alike, Jackson writes that “it is time for House Republicans to stop politicizing our air and water.” As head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Jackson has faced harsh criticism from House Republicans and GOP presidential candidates who say the agency’s regulations are an undue burden on businesses that have to cut jobs simply to comply with clean water and air rules. Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann  has pledged to end the EPA if she takes office. “Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation’s environmental laws,” writes Jackson.

EPA administrator says federal nutrient criteria is a ‘myth’

In testimony given late last week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that false accusations about her agency’s numeric nutrient criteria to govern Florida waterways are proving to be a detriment to their implementation. # Testifying before the House Agriculture Committee, Jackson said her agency’s work was often “mischaracterized” and addressed several myths surrounding its work

EPA announces hold on nutrient standards if Florida can come up with own criteria

The EPA announced today that it is now prepared to withdraw a portion of its proposed numeric nutrient criteria (a set of standards governing water pollution in inland waters) and delay the portion related to estuarine waters, to allow the state Department of Environmental Protection to develop its own criteria. # From a statement released by the EPA earlier today: # EPA recognizes that states have the primary role in establishing and implementing water quality standards for their waters. Therefore, EPA is prepared to withdraw the federal inland standards and delay the estuarine standards if FDEP adopts, and EPA approves, their own protective and scientifically sound numeric standards

EPA Analysis Says Climate Bill’s Cost for Households Would Be ‘Modest’

All the attention on the energy front today is going to the BP spill, but the Environmental Protection Agency quietly released its long-anticipated analysis of

EPA and California Near Deal on Fuel Efficiency Standards

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration raised fuel efficiency standards by an average of two miles per gallon -- a modest change that disappointed some

© Copyright 2021 The Washington Independent All Rights Reserved

Terms & Privacy |