About Jake Parent

Posts by Jake Parent:

The surprising answer from Google on its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

,

It can be hard to get a big corporation to go on record about anything – much less something controversial.

That’s why I was pleasantly surprised by the answer I got at Google’s annual shareholder meeting when I asked cofounder Larry Page why the company is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an organization that has publicly opposed many of Google’s positions and interests.

After receiving applause for my question, Google’s head lawyer David Drummond – who was helping Page to answer questions – responded that the company’s membership in the U.S. Chamber is something senior leadership debates a lot. He added that while there are some things that the U.S. Chamber is good for, there is a lot of stuff it does that Google doesn’t agree with.

He concluded by saying that, “while we are members for now, it’s something that we do review.”

More

Google should disclose its political spending and leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

, , , ,

You can Google anything right?

Well, try going to the search engine and entering “Google’s political spending.”

You’ll get something like this:

A screen grab of a Google search for the phrase "Google's political spending"

Ironically, the top result is Google’s “transparency policy.”

As you can see, while we get a few results for the company’s direct lobbying activities (which it is required by law to disclose), there’s little else to indicate what Google is doing with its other political dollars.

To make things clearer, I should explain that companies can spend money on politics in a few ways.

First, they can spend directly on lobbying themselves. They can also make direct political expenditures to back candidates or contribute to federally registered political committees. And in some states, they can contribute directly to candidates. This spending generally has to be disclosed.

But they can also spend money that doesn’t have to be disclosed. This spending can vary, but is most commonly done when a company makes contributions to “social welfare” organizations like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS or to “trade associations” like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Neither the organizations nor the companies have to disclose these types of contributions, and the organizations can spend money on a wide range of political activities.

More

Unemployed workers march on U.S. Chamber headquarters after 150 mile trek

,

Would you walk 150 miles for…

Your family?

Your job?

Your community?

These are all reasons that a group of more than a dozen unemployed workers just made the trek from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to the doorsteps of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C.

I joined the group at a rally in front of the U.S. Chamber headquarters, an event Chamber Watch helped organize along with the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, Shut the Chamber and Move to Amend.

The message the group of brave travelers came with was that the policies being pushed by the U.S. Chamber are benefiting corporations while hurting the poor and the middle class.

A major concern for the group is efforts by the U.S. Chamber that slow the growth of the green sector.

From calling for climate science to be put on trial to petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency not to enforce the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Chamber has spent lots of money muddying the waters about the need for a greener economy. More

New U.S. Chamber attacks on corporate political spending disclosure are a good sign

, , , ,

How can you tell that momentum is building for change?

Well, one good sign is that the opposition starts getting nervous about your progress.

That’s why we took it as a positive sign that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently stepped up attacks on shareholders who attempt to make companies disclose political spending.

Earlier this month, I attended an almost comical presentation at the U.S. Chamber headquarters where speakers spent most of a four hour event attacking political spending disclosure resolutions as being bad for business.

I say ‘almost’ comical because, while much of the information is laughably wrong, the subject matter is far too important to joke about.

There are a number of things wrong with what I heard at this event, but I’d like to focus on two disturbing claims in particular.

More

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fighting for the right of oil, gas and mining corporations to keep payments to foreign governments secret

, , ,

A photograph of Jake Parent, coordinator of Public Citizen's U.S. Chamber WatchA federal court is considering an industry challenge to a rule recently adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would require certain oil, gas and mining companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments.

Congress directed the SEC to adopt the rule at the behest of human rights groups and investors concerned that the lack of transparency hinders citizens’ ability to hold their governments accountable for the management of revenues from oil, natural gas and minerals.

The Chamber’s reasoning for opposing the measure?

It says that complying with the rule would cost companies too much money and make it difficult for American businesses to compete with firms from countries without disclosure requirements.

Oxfam America, which filed a brief in the case to support the rule, said separately that a similar rule recently adopted by the European Union shows that such complaints are groundless.

In statement after statement, the Chamber has consistently reaffirmed its belief that its corporate members should not have to share information about whom they make payments to.

But the SEC doesn’t agree, and neither does Public Citizen. We think the court should uphold the rule, which aims to diminish the “resource curse” – the phenomenon by which the people in countries with lots of mineral resources find themselves worse off as a result of mining and drilling activities. More

Load More