Tag Archives | US Chamber of Commerce

Shareholder Proposal Reform Rebutted

Shareholder Proposal Reform

Shareholder Proposal Reform or Fat-Cat Entrenchment?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness (CCMC) released a paper on shareholder proposal reform, which contains a “set of recommendations for the SEC on fixing the broken Rule 14a-8 system in order to protect investors and make the public company model more attractive.” See also the Chamber’s press release, U.S. Chamber Offers Recommendations to SEC on Shareholder Proposal Reform.

Rule 14-8 is not broken, many of the Chamber’s attestations are alternative facts and its recommendations are more likely to hurt our economy than help it. The paper is very similar to their previously released Responsible Shareholder Engagement And Long-Term Value Creation: Modernizing the Shareholder Proposal Process. As I wrote in my rebuttal last year (Business Roundtable to SEC: Muzzle Shareholders),

‘modernization’ for the Business Roundtable means moving the SEC further and further from its primary mandate of ‘investor protection’ by creating a democracy-free zone for entrenched managers.

Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Directors Forum 2017 & Trump – Part 1

Linda Sweeney - Eec Director - Directors Forum 2016

Linda Sweeney – Exec Director – Directors Forum 2016

Directors Forum 2017 in San Diego was billed as Directors, Management, & Shareholders in Dialogue. Sure, all well and good, but I went there also hoping to learn more about President Donald J. Trump. He is the subject of a huge portion of tweets, Facebook posts and much of the news, so I expected Trump to also be the center of attention at Directors Forum 2017.

Directors Forum 2017 - iJoan B. Kroc Institute for Peace Justice

Directors Forum 2017 – Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace Justice

I know what those in my immediate circles in Sacramento are saying. Clinton got 58% of the vote to Trump’s 34%. My news silos are much the same. At Directors Forum 2017 were directors and managers from companies, large and medium (the focus is rarely on small companies, although the Forum does better than most). Investors representing trillions of dollars in assets were in the room and on stage. What was the speculation on Trump and his impact on what we do? Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Business Roundtable to SEC: Muzzle Shareholders

proxymonitorsmeasurecsmypropsAs I indicated yesterday, I have been contacted by several reporters for comments on the latest screed from the Business Roundtable seeking to muzzle the rights of shareholders. Although I have much more productive ways to occupy my time, it does make sense for me to provide at least some response, since the Business Roundtable names me among those “pursuing special interests… frequently at a significant cost to the company.”

Their statistics do not come from an objective third party, such as Proxy Insight, but from the conservative Manhattan Institute‘s Proxy Monitor (funded in part by the Koch Family Foundations), covering only 250 out of thousands of American companies. The Business Roundtable titled their report Responsible Shareholder Engagement And Long-Term Value Creation: Modernizing the Shareholder Proposal Process. Don’t be fooled by the numbers they use, claiming few proposals pass. The Business Roundtable doesn’t count proposals that don’t make it to the proxy because proponents and companies have reached agreement. They don’t count proposals filed at the thousands of small companies, which tend to have poorer corporate governance practices. ‘Modernization’ for the Business Roundtable means moving the SEC further and further from its primary mandate of ‘investor protection’ by creating a democracy-free zone for entrenched managers.  Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

No-Action Requests & the Business Roundtable

Most Popular Topics of No-Action Requests for 2016

Most Popular Topics of No-Action Requests

Yesterday, several reporters asked me to comment on no-action requests and the SEC’s denial to Apple, as well as the Business Roundtable’s fanciful notions regarding the need for reform of the proxy proposal process. I am reluctant to give the Business Roundtable’s proposal, Modernizing the Shareholder Proposal Processany more ink but will just touch on one of their issues here as I explain the Apple decision. 

No-Action Requests: Apple and Proxy Access Lite

The SEC has consistently denied no-action requests to companies where the proponent asks for modifications to bylaws when the companies have made no modifications in the direction requested. See H&R Block and Microsoft as prior examples. Apple is no exception. This is nothing new. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Yes Men Best Chamber in Lawsuit

Maybe the SEC would be better off hiring the Yes Men to handle their rulemaking, rather than Robert Rice as SEC counsel, which could have a chilling impact on the SEC’s whistleblower program. (see SEC Chair Mary Jo White’s first big test by )

The Yes Men today implored the US Chamber of Commerce to reconsider their recent decision to withdraw the lawsuit they filed nearly four years ago, in a press conference on the steps of the lobbying giant itself. Said former defendant Andy Bichlbaum of the Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Event: The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms

The U.S. Chamber Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness (CCMC) will hold a half-day event on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 in Washington DC to take an in-depth look at the influence of proxy advisors and the state of corporate governance in the U.S. It would be nice to get some shareowners out to at least listen and report back to CorpGov.net. I would love to learn of their plans. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Walden to Present Chamber Resolution on Floor of AGMs

Investors have been urging companies serving on the Board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“the Board”) to reevaluate their role on the Board. They point to a significant disconnect between the companies’ public commitment to corporate responsibility and sustainability and the Chamber’s aggressive lobbying and political spending against issues ranging from climate change legislation to healthcare reform.

In January, forty-four investors with $43 billion in assets wrote to nearly three dozen companies with representation on the Chamber Board. In March, a dozen investors led by Walden Asset Management began implementation of a new strategy to encourage companies to review their role on the Chamber Board – moving resolutions from the floor of annual stockholder meetings.

While shareholder resolutions submitted for company proxy statements under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules are a common occurrence, under company bylaws investors are also able to propose a resolution to be moved from the floor for action at the stockholder meeting. These resolutions can be much more direct and specific than resolutions submitted under SEC rules.

To date, floor resolutions addressing Chamber Board membership have been submitted this proxy season to 3M Company, ConocoPhillips, CVS Caremark, Eastman Kodak, JPMorgan Chase and Pfizer. More resolutions are Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Responsible Investor: Walden's ShareOwner Proposals

Shareowners recognize that with more than 100 members the Chamber’s board is effectively ungovernable, leaving the door wide open for management. There are board committees on different issues, such as the environment, but committees do not govern, they recommend…

A company’s obligation to its shareowners also goes beyond disclosure. Companies also have an obligation to shareowners to oversee the activities of their trade associations. They can have a major impact on companies and pose a range of risks. It is important to understand the principal-agency relationship between companies and trade associations. Principals are responsible for the actions of their agents.

Shareowners look forward to hearing from Accenture, and the other 34 companies, in the very near future. Where do each of you stand as a company and what actions are you planning to take to reduce the dissonance between what you say you are and how that relates to your membership on the US Chamber of Commerce’s board? We know that you sit in many places. We need to know where you truly stand! (Can big US companies stay with the Chamber of Commerce when it contradicts their own policies?, Responsible Investor.)

Stephen Viederman, the author of the post on RI, is a Strategic Advisor to the Christopher Reynolds Foundation and one of the few people I encountered early on in the field of social investing who was also keenly aware of the importance of corporate governance… the rules.

Also interesting:

What if I told you I’d found a political group that for a hundred years had managed to be absolutely right on every crucial political issue? A political lodestone, reliably pointing toward true policy north at every moment. (Why the Chamber of Commerce Has Been Wrong on All the Issues — For 99 Years and Counting, Bill McKibben

Continue Reading ·

Resolutions Challenge Chamber Board Members on Political Expenditures

Investors recently announced filing of shareowner resolutions at several corporations with board members who also sit on the Board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenging these corporate boards to review their policies and oversight of political expenditures, especially through trade associations. The first filings are at Accenture, IBM, Pepsi and Pfizer.

The filers believe each of these companies has strong corporate governance records and is understandably proud of its leadership in corporate responsibility. In addition, IBM, Pfizer and Pepsi have strong vendor standards policies holding their suppliers to high standards of conduct through audits and engagement. However, according to Timothy Smith, Senior Vice President of Walden Asset Management and one of the lead sponsors of the resolutions:

Yet as Board members and major corporate contributors to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce they play a passive and compliant role, remaining silent while the Chamber reportedly poured $75 million into the 2010 election while working to unseat any member of the U.S. Congress who voted in favor of healthcare reform. The Chamber also works vigorously against legislation and regulation on climate change and financial reform. Ironically, the Chamber works to undercut the very leadership these companies demonstrate on sustainability.

Adam Kanzer, General Counsel at Domini Social Investments and a filer of the resolution at IBM, said:

The Chamber of Commerce is an aggressively partisan organization that is standing in the way of solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems, from health care to climate change. We are asking why these companies would lend their good names—and their implicit endorsement— to the Chamber’s agenda, which often runs contrary to their own, stated policies and practices. We are simply asking them to do what directors are supposed to do – ask hard questions and exercise meaningful oversight.

The resolution sponsors argue that a company serving on the Chamber’s Board can be widely perceived as supporting and promoting its policies and programs, which can have a negative impact on a company with a strong reputation for good governance and corporate responsibility, since the Chamber’s own website says:

Directors determine the U.S. Chamber’s policy positions on business issues and advise the U.S. Chamber on appropriate strategies to pursue. Through their participation in meetings and activities held across the nation, directors help implement and promote U.S. Chamber policies and objectives.

The resolution is also expected to be filed with several other companies on the Chamber’s Board, which has over 100 members including, AT&T, Caremark, Caterpillar, Deere & Company, Dow Chemical, FedEx, JPMorgan Chase & Co., UPS, and Xerox. Stephen Viederman of the Christopher Reynolds Foundation, one of the sponsors of the Pfizer resolution said,

As Chamber Board members these companies need to stand up and be counted; clarifying which side they are on. If they differ with the political positions of the Chamber, they need to speak out and make their positions clear.

Controversy about the Chamber’s role in thwarting environmental and climate change legislation led Nike to withdraw from the Board; and PG&E, Exelon, Apple and Levi Strauss to withdraw their Chamber memberships in 2009. In addition, several local Chambers of Commerce have withdrawn their national affiliation.

To date, the 25 filers of these resolutions include a broad range of investors, including Walden Asset Management, Domini Social Investment, the Christopher Reynolds Foundation, Catholic Health East, Catholic Healthcare West, Green Century Balanced Fund, the Funding Exchange, the Needmor Fund, Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Sisters of Notre Dame Toledo Province, Catholic Healthcare East, the Tides Foundation, Boston Common Asset Management, Zevin Asset Management as well as several individual investors. The list of filers is expected to expand as the proxy season progresses.

I encourage readers to support these resolutions and consider filing their own wherever there are gaps, following the example of the SIF members mentioned above, Shareowner Resolution. Not sure how to file? Sign up for a free class with USPX.

Ron Freund, of the Social Equity Group, wonders if similar resolutions should be placed at major TV owners requesting policies which prohibit political ads from non-disclosed donations.

Continue Reading ·

Funds Preparing Candidate Pool

As I have reported previously (CorpGov Bites), CalPERS and CalSTRS are cooperating to create a database of prospective  director candidates with diverse backgrounds and talents for possible nomination to boards through proxy access. At the Yale forum in June, representatives of the two funds led a workshop aimed at developing a questionnaire to be used to build a Diverse Director Database. (see slideshow)

I received an e-mail from Anne Simpson of CalPERS recently letting me know that individuals who want to be considered for such positions can submit their resumes to [email protected]. Once the questionnaire is completed, individuals will then need to enter the information requested into an online candidate questionnaire linked to the database.

Martin B. Robins, who occasionally posts to this blog, recently suggested that candidates from such funds undergo extensive training on the substantive and procedural obligations they will face as directors, with a special focus on skills needed when serving on hybrid boards. (Directors Elected Through Proxy Access) Those interested in making suggestions for such training or any other recommendations related to the pool of candidates should also do so through the same e-mail address: [email protected].

Not unexpectedly, the US Chamber of Commerce sounded an alarm, sending a letter to the SEC expressing concerns with CalPERS’s plans to influence boards of directors should the SEC finalize “proxy access.” The Chamber argues proxy access and the Diverse Director Database would “effectively make boards accountable to special interest rather than to shareholders.”

  • Directors, who are implicitly or explicitly beholden to an individual, or to a special interest group, may have a conflict of interest with the fiduciary standards that directors must adhere to.
  • It is unclear what if any safeguards are in place under the 3D program to ensure that members in the pool of shadow directors adhere to their fiduciary responsibilities, if elected to the Board, and not act in the interest of a particular individual or a specific group.

The Chamber urges the SEC to review its options for inspecting and regulating the 3D program and other similar programs. Apparently they’re happy with the current system, which at many companies involves nominating committees vetting candidates and seeking approval from the CEO before placing them on the proxy.

During a CEO’s tenure, he or she will make countless decisions that affect the company for decades to come – and influence many more. One of the most important and far-reaching is the selection of board directors.

Thankfully, many companies have moved well beyond typical advice offered in 1996. (Solving the board puzzle: how to select the ‘right’ directors – Governance, by Harry G. Hohn, The Chief Executive,  June, 1996. Yet, this much more recent 2004 publication from SpencerStuart includes the following:

The nominating committee reconvenes with the short list and compares these candidates’ suitability against the criteria in the position specification. The CEO almost always is involved in this process, particularly to veto any prospects deemed unsuitable.

See also, The role of the CEO in board selection: too much, or too little, involvement can be problematic. Here is a best-practices process, Directors & Boards, Fall 2007.

Candidates who are vetted by shareowners and then elected, according to the Chamber’s logic, may be “beholden to an individual, or to a special interest group.” Presumably, when nominating committees run candidates past the CEO for approval they’re just doing it to ensures they can “work together.” The CEO has no “special interest”… other than evaluations, pay, tenure, etc.

See also: Calpers Aims Director List at Increasing Board Sway, WSJ, 6/18/10. The Altman Interview – Anne Sheehan, Director of Corporate Governance, California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), Governance & Proxy Review, 5/14/10. Proxy Access Ahead: A Director Database for the Big Three (CalPERS, CalSTRS and CII), theCorporateCounsel.net/blog, 8/3/10. Jeff Jinnett: Directors of Public Companies No Longer “Parsley on the Fish,” 6/29/10. CalPERS and the DDD, California Corporate & Securities Law, 7/14/10.

For somewhat similar earlier initiatives, see the Director Diversity Database, a joint project of the Center for Banking and Finance and the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law. A working group of academics and business professionals provides guidance and advice to the Initiative. The objective of the Initiative is to encourage boards of directors of public companies to increase their gender, racial, and ethnic diversity. See also Boardroom Bound®, an alternative pipeline that delivers a new generation of director candidates to companies seeking to fill vacated seats in their boardrooms. My understanding is that the CalPERS/CalSTRS definition of diversity is in the broadest sense, like that of the SEC’s recent disclosure requirements.

Continue Reading ·

CorpGov Bites

“Bank of America persuaded the SEC to drop “proxy access” provision as they negotiated a $150 million settlement of a lawsuit tied to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co… The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million companies, has said “activist shareholders” would use proxy access to hijack elections to pursue “political or social issues.”” (SEC Said to Push BofA Proxy Rule in Enforcement Case, Bloomberg.com, 2/18/10)  “SOX substantially beefed up the obligations of the audit committee, at least for Exchange traded companies.  See Section 301 of SOX.  The committee was given the direct authority to supervise and to hire/fire the outside auditor.  The committee was also given the authority to hire counsel without full board approval.” “In the proposed settlement with BofA, the SEC is seeking to augment the authority of the audit committee one more time.  The Commission is giving to the audit committee (not the full board) the authority to hire counsel.  Counsel must not only review filings but must discuss possible deficiencies with the audit committee in executive session, without the presence of the non-indpendent directors.  The latter restriction is significant.” (The Board of Directors and a Review of Corporate Disclosure, theRacetotheBottom.org, 2/17/10)

Interesting, Bloomberg failed to get the Chamber’s new line. “Late last month, for the first time in more than a decade, the US Chamber of Commerce changed the boilerplate language that appears at the bottom of its press releases. The nation’s largest business lobby no longer claims to be “representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.” Instead, it claims to be “representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses” (emphasis added). The smallness of the tweak masks its major significance: Representing somebody, which strongly implies a direct relationship, is very different from representing their interests. The Chamber is in effect acknowleging that the “3 million” businesses aren’t actually its members… It was forced to admit that its true membership isn’t the 3 million businesses that it has claimed, but something on the order of 300,000.” (Chamber of Commerce No Longer “Represents” 3 Million Businesses, Mother Jones, 2/12/10)

I guess we at CorpGov.net should be claiming to represent the interests of the approximately 100 million Americans who own stocks or mutual funds… but why stop at Americans, since we occasionally cover corporate governance issues in other countries as well?

Apple, lags industry peers on sustainability reporting and has not made public greenhouse gas reduction commitments. Apple shareowners are beginning to vote their proxies on Moxy Vote, based on recommendations from Calvert Investments to support a resolution on on sustainability reporting. (Is Apple green enough?, Mac News)  The problem is there is another proposal seeking a bylaw requiring a board committee on sustainability… and there are all those directors to vote for or against. While I love Moxy Vote and own Apple stock, at this point, in Beta form, I’m disappointed the site has no one to advise me on how to vote the other issues or on the directors. So, I turn to ProxyDemocracy.org and even they have collected no votes in advance of the 2/25/10 meeting from “ten institutional investors that are particularly engaged in corporate governance.” I’ll wait until next week to vote.

Eric Jackson does a nice job interviewing John Gillespie and David Zweig, co-authors of “Money for Nothing.”  Gillespie says we won’t have real change until the old players like Bernanke, Geithner and Summers leave. Zweig says, “corporate governance needs a new name to encourage change, maybe corporate democracy.” (Corporate Governance Role in Meltdown, TheStreet.com, 2/17/10) See my review under the heading Fix the Boards – Fix the System. Buy the book.

“Advocates of genocide-free investing won another important victory this week, when American Funds, a family of mutual funds with more than $775 billion in investments, decided to divest virtually all its holdings in PetroChina. Before a shareowner meeting held on November 24, American Funds owned 167 million shares in PetroChina, worth $190 million.”  “Investors Against Genocide advanced a resolution asking that the Board of American Funds “institute procedures to prevent holding investments in companies that…substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity.” American Funds opposed the measure, and affirmative votes for the proposal ranged from 8.5% to 11.8% at the meeting.” (American Funds Sells PetroChina Holdings, SocialFunds.com, 2/18/10) The showing on their resolution would have probably been much higher had voting instructions issued by Broadridge actually complied with the requirements for proxies to clearly indicate the voting topic instead of simply referencing “a shareholder proposal described in the proxy statement.” Broadridge could get away with it because that the language the issuer wanted and since Broadridge uses a voter information form, they don’t feel they are bound by SEC requirements that apply to proxies. (see our coverage of that issue at Investors Against Genocide Fighting American Funds, Broadridge and Vague SEC Requirements: More Problems Solved Using Direct Registration.

Corporate governance advisory firm PIRC made history again. In January 2009 they took a radical step, and began publicly disclosing via their website the voting recommendations they make for company meetings. Now they have set out have set out six best practice principles for corporate governance advisors, as follows:

  • Clear voting policy guidelines should be made available to clients, the companies whom the adviser is monitoring and to the market;
  • Clear audit trail and explanation of the process for assessing companies and making voting recommendations should be available to clients and the companies monitored;
  • Possible conflicts of interest should be disclosed to clients and to companies monitored and, where necessary, to market regulators (i.e. paid consulting with companies);
  • Companies monitored should be given reasonable opportunity to comment on voting recommendations made and the basis of such recommendations;
  • Voting agencies should routinely report to clients on actions taken on their behalf;
  • All voting recommendations made by a voting adviser should be publicly disclosed post-meeting. (Corporate governance agencies: the need for transparent voting decisions by Tom Powdrill on Responsible Investor, 2/18/10)

The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will meet in DC on February 22 at 9 a.m. The agenda for the meeting includes consideration of a Committee recusal policy, a report from the Education Subcommittee, including a presentation on the National Financial Capability Survey, a report from the Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee, including a discussion of fiduciary duty and mandatory arbitration, a report from the Investor as Owner Subcommittee, including recommendations for the Committee on Regulation FD and proxy voting transparency, as well as reports on a work plan for environmental, social, and governance disclosure and on financial reform legislation, and discussion of next steps and closing comments. I’ll be tuning into the webcast if time permits.

The Conference Board issued a new report, Directors’ Duties under the New SEC Rules on Disclosure Enhancement, available to members. From my quick review, the report appears comprehensive but written clearly and in an easy to understand format. Highly recommended for directors, their advisors and monitors. Additionally, the SEC posted six new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations 116.07, 117.05; 119.21, 119.22 and 119.23, which offer guidance on disclosure under Items 401, 402(a), and Item 402(c) of Regulation S-K. Staff also added new question 121A.01 related to Exchange Act Form 8-K, which explains calculation of the four-business day filing period for disclosing the results of a shareholder vote. See also  guidance on the new requirements from Compliance Week issued in January and December as well as the original rule. Additional guidance from the Altman Group, Walking the Tightrope – New Proxy Disclosures on Director Qualifications, Board Risk Oversight and Board Diversity – and new Climate Change Disclosures for the 10K.

The Corporate Library’s ‘2010 Proxy Season Foresights #3: The Growth of Clawback Provisions, ($15) found that the number of companies with clawback provisions continued to increase in 2009, and almost half of such companies are smaller-cap firms outside the Russell 1000.

The Centre for Corporate Governance Research (CCGR) is organising its 8th International Corporate Governance Conference on Wednesday 23rd June 2010, to be held at the University of Birmingham, UK.  The theme of the conference is ‘Corporate Governance and Sustainability’. Keynote speakers include Colin Melvin (Chief Executive, Hermes Equity Ownership Services Ltd), Dr Michael Blowfield (University of Oxford) and Dr Beate Sjåfjell (University of Oslo). Sir Adrian Cadbury, the CCGR’s External Advisor, will be attending the event. Papers are invited on issues relating to any area of corporate governance and sustainability. Papers should be sent as an electronic copy in PDF format, by 31st March 2010 to Karen Hanson.

Moxy Vote is running a series, Here’s to the many pioneers!, Part 1 includes yours truly, Jim McRitchie, along with Mark Latham, Andy Eggers and Matt Keenan. Part 2 will include Glyn Holton, Nell Minow, and the Social Investment Forum. I’m blushing to be in such company. Thanks to Mark Schlegal and to all the fine work at Moxy Vote for facilitating involvement by retail investors and providing advocates such an important pipeline of influence.

The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) published a White Paper, The OBO/NOBO Distinction in Beneficial Ownership: Implications for Shareowner Communications and Voting, authored by Alan Beller and Janet Fisher of the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.  Mr. Beller is a former Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance. From the Executive Summary:

The SEC is likely to be cautious in seeking to change the current framework in significant ways, at least in the near term. Defining the objective is critical to developing a proposal. If the goal is to increase the ability of shareowners and companies to communicate directly, a number of incremental steps may be taken to address the OBO/NOBO distinction and facilitate direct distribution of proxy materials, without discarding the current distribution platform. Such an approach could lead to meaningful improvements, without seriously affecting the interests of many of the participants in the current framework, and we believe it has a greater chance of widespread support than more radical alternatives… On balance, we believe that the immediate interest of shareowners and companies in better communications would be better and more effectively served with an incremental approach that promotes less reliance on — or eliminates altogether — the OBO/NOBO distinction and otherwise increases the potential for direct communications.

Continue Reading ·

Chamber Outspends RNC & DNC BEFORE Citizens United

“For the first time in recent history, the lobbying, grassroots and advertising budget of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has surpassed the spending of the national committees of BOTH the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee,” begins The Corporations Already Outspend The Parties, the Atlantic, 2/1/10. And, of course, that is before the decision in Citizens United.

The article goes on to note, “Republican lawyer Ben Ginsberg went so far as to say that the parties would be ‘threatened by extinction.’ And Ginsberg supports the CU decision!”

According to The Center for Responsive Politics, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its national subsidiaries spent $144.5 million in 2009, far more than the RNC and more than double the expenditures by the DNC. None of the contributions that made up this $144.5 million were subject to disclosure. ChambThe article discusses expenditures around defeating health care and expenditures of about $1 million each in Virginia and Massachusetts

Continue Reading ·

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes