Chamber of Commerce Launches $50 Million War on Tea Party

Newsmax ^ | December 27, 2013 | Cathy Burke

[WhiskeyX]

Perhaps it is time to give notice to the members of the Chamber of Commerce that they too can be boycotted.

[Aevery_Freeman]

Because you need not be good at business if you can buy enough politicians to destroy the competition or dole out the goodies.

If you have not read Atlas Shrugged, please do so for a more detailed explanation.

[Iron Munro]

I'm simple minded. Somebody 'splain to me why the BUSINESS COMMUNITY (Wall Street / Fortune 500, and Main Street/ Chamber of Commerce), hates the TEA party, the most overtly anti-strangulatory-taxation-and-regulation, pro-free enterprise, ergo pro-BUSINESS grassroots movement in the country. The Chamber of Commerce primarily represents existing business interests.

The federal government protects and supports entrenched businesses - no matter which party is in power.

The Tea Party wants to rein in government spending and regulation and move toward a more free market environment.
That would mean less government protection, support and reduced handouts for entrenched busuiness.

And it would mean more competition.

Businesses crave stability, which they get when the government regulates the business environment, discouraging diversity and competition.

Entrenched businesses do not want the uncertainty of a free market or competition from new ventures.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

As I see it, it’s probably because you have an underlying belief that business wants a level playing field. They want (you think) *everyone* to have an equal opportunity to benefit from, as you posit, a low level of regulation and a low level of taxation, and to compete fairly, with the best of their resources, in an open market.

With respect, I see it differently. By the time a business is a multi-national, multi-billion-dollar enterprise, with established names and branding and lines of distribution and loyalty, etc; their profitability is, in the main, established. Of course, they can try new things, but *new things* don’t always work. New Coke, for example.

So they don’t especially like *trying new things*. They prefer more certain courses of action. They would rather come out with an [established-brand]-lite. A movie studio would rather come out with a sequel to an existing hit than try something new. A GM would rather come out with a new model of Buick than a Saturn. And so, companies of these size and of this degree of political influence (let’s face it, that what gets laws written) would much rather invest say $10 million spraying money around to political candidates EVEN IF the money is spent 50/50 Dem/Rep than to spend $35 million in R&D developing a new deodorant. The kind of returns possible for such companies bribing politicians is astronomically greater than what they can make selling their stuff. A $1-2-5 million campaign contribution spread out among 20-40 candidates could easily produce a 100:1 return. And companies are loaded with cash now. They don’t want to invest heavily in new plant, because this admin, at least, has shown a willingness to change laws and shake down any moneybags they can see out there.

And that, IMO, is the story. It is much much cheaper for companies to allow themselves to be shaken down and to be sure they get something from same than to experiment with some new brand of toothpaste that they need a new plant to make. And frankly, for better or for worse, it’s a lot smarter, because should they split their contributions, they can say they supported either party and ask favors from whomever wins. And be fairly sure of getting them. Not only that, but they can promise further support to those who took it in the past. Like a drug pusher. Because they have the money to influence politicians, they can influence laws and fight potential laws they see as inhibitive. We live in a world where it’s 10 times preferable to take the inside track and develop an edge than to take random risk. EVERYBODY is on the take.

[oldbrowser]

"That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket."

I can agree with that. We need winners on the republican ticket. However, when it comes to choosing between the big government republicans and the small government republicans I will go with the small government candidate.

I just hope the Chamber of Commerce and the Tea Party don't knock each other off and set up a Marxist sweep of both houses.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser conservative candidates," Chamber strategist Scott Reed told The Wall Street Journal.

Fixed it.

[SandRat]

WHY, It didn’t do King Goerge III any good.

[VRW Conspirator]

But maybe somebody can tell me why.

I cannot tell you exactly why, Don, but follow the money is a good start. I would like to see some real investigative journalist actually dig into the CoC and pull resume/CV's of the players.

[lakecumberlandvet]

“That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket.”
___

My mantra will be: No GOPe/RINO on my ballot.

[Venturer]

“That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket.”
...........................................................

No: all the fools belong to the Chamber of Commerce.

[P-Marlowe]

In simple terms big businesses love big government. They have the clout and money to buy Senators and congressmen to ensure their competition is regulated out of business.

[indthkr]

"maybe somebody can tell me why"

The simple explanation is this: the oath of the USCoC is to tranactions and money (particularly, their money). Tea Party members, and a lot of other people, remember that their oath as citizens is to the US Constitution.

[Night Hides Not]

Because you need not be good at business if you can buy enough politicians to destroy the competition or dole out the goodies.
If you have not read Atlas Shrugged, please do so for a more detailed explanation.

Part 2, Chapter 2, "The Aristocracy of Pull", to be exact.

The Chamber of Commerce does not represent the small business community. The larger companies that are dues paying members can bake the costs of government into their cost of goods...it's just another line item.

[Night Hides Not]

My mantra will be: No GOPe/RINO on my ballot.

See my tagline, FRiend.

[Zeneta]

Do you think the CoC, is or would be in favor of “Single-Payer” Healthcare ?

[DaveyB]

But maybe somebody can tell me why. In simple terms.

They made it to the top and now want no one to threaten their position through competition. It is king of the hill using regulation to defend the hill against all threats.

[kitkat]

From Google: >>>The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) is an American lobbying group representing the interests of many businesses and trade associations. It is not an agency of the United States government.
The Chamber is staffed with policy specialists, lobbyists and lawyers. Politically, the Chamber is generally considered to be a conservative organization. It usually supports Republican political candidates, though it has occasionally supported conservative Democrats.[1][2] The Chamber is one of the largest lobbying groups in the U.S., spending more money than any other lobbying organization on a yearly basis.[3][4]>>>

The question is: Under what law in the Constitution does the Chamber of Commerce operate?

[PhiloBedo]

After 2014, the CoC will realize they just wasted $50 million.

I didn’t work out so well for the unions, did it?

[Axenolith]

Because the “business community” is like a welfare recipient now and they want to continue their perks, bennies and legislative monopolies...

[Axenolith]

They won’t reply, but inside they will be saying to themselves “because most of you are to stupid or lazy to stop buying our products”.