Ties to the Koch Brothers: fixing typo, clarifying year
←Older revision
Revision as of 16:56, 25 June 2014
(3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 8:
Line 8:
==Ties to the Koch Brothers==
==Ties to the Koch Brothers==
−
In 2012, [[Freedom Partners]] reported giving $1,170,000 to NAM. Freedom Partners has been described as "the [[Koch brothers]]' secret bank."<ref>Mike Allen and Jim Vandehi, "[http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/behind-the-curtain-exclusive-the-koch-brothers-secret-bank-96669.html#ixzz2hj4y5I8o Exclusive: The Koch brothers' secret bank]," ''Politico'', September 11, 2013. Accessed June 24, 2014.</ref>
+
In 2012, [[Freedom Partners]] reported giving $1,170,000 to NAM. Freedom Partners has been described as "the [[Koch brothers]]' secret bank."<ref>Mike Allen and Jim Vandehi, "[http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/behind-the-curtain-exclusive-the-koch-brothers-secret-bank-96669.html#ixzz2hj4y5I8o Exclusive: The Koch brothers' secret bank]," ''Politico'', September 11, 2013. Accessed June 24, 2014.</ref>
The Center for Responsive Politics reported that Freedom Partners' other grantees that year included other "well-known trade groups with established lobbying and political activities," like the [[US Chamber of Commerce]] and the [[National Federation of Independent Business]], and that Freedom Partners' spending "dwarfs that of almost every other trade group in the country."<ref>Robert Maguire and Viveca Novak, "[http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/koch-groups-irs-report-unlocks-mysteries-details-giant-trade-group/ Koch Group’s IRS Report Unlocks A Few Mysteries]," Center for Responsive Politics, September 18, 2013. Accessed June 25, 2014.</ref>
+
+
NAM's positions align with many of the positions advocated by other members of the Koch funding network, including opposing greenhouse gas regulations, fighting campaign finance reform, opposition to unions, and lobbying for pro-business policies (see below).
==Lobbying==
==Lobbying==
Line 17:
Line 19:
==Election Spending==
==Election Spending==
National Association of Manufacturers has been active in political campaigns through its PAC.
National Association of Manufacturers has been active in political campaigns through its PAC.
+
+
===2010===
+
In 2010, NAM reported $886,764 independent expenditures targeting four candidates, all Democrats.
+
*[[Blanche Lincoln]], Arkansas Senate race
+
*[[Michael F. Bennet]], Colorado Senate race
+
*[[Harry Reid]], Nevada Senate race
+
*[[Russ Feingold]], Wisconsin Senate race<ref>Center for Responsive Politics, [http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/recips.php?cmte=C30001663&cycle=2010 National Assn of Manufacturers], outside spending report, accessed June 25, 2014.</ref>
==News and Advocacy==
==News and Advocacy==
Line 32:
Line 41:
In 2009, [[Duke Energy]], which operates scores of coal-fired power plants in the Southeast and Midwest, would not be renewing its membership due to NAM's refusal to address global warming. In an interview, Duke CEO [[Jim Rogers]] siad, "We are not renewing our membership in NAM because in tough times, we want to invest in associations that are pulling tin the same direction we are." Rogers said that NAM, as well as the [[US Chamber of Commerce]] and the Republican Party "ought to roll up their sleeves and get to work on a climate bill, but quite frankly, I don't see them changing."<ref>Amanda Terkel, [http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/duke-nam/ "Duke Energy Quits the Right-Wing National Association of Manufacturers Over Differences on Climate Policy,"] Think Progress, May 8, 2009</ref>
In 2009, [[Duke Energy]], which operates scores of coal-fired power plants in the Southeast and Midwest, would not be renewing its membership due to NAM's refusal to address global warming. In an interview, Duke CEO [[Jim Rogers]] siad, "We are not renewing our membership in NAM because in tough times, we want to invest in associations that are pulling tin the same direction we are." Rogers said that NAM, as well as the [[US Chamber of Commerce]] and the Republican Party "ought to roll up their sleeves and get to work on a climate bill, but quite frankly, I don't see them changing."<ref>Amanda Terkel, [http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/duke-nam/ "Duke Energy Quits the Right-Wing National Association of Manufacturers Over Differences on Climate Policy,"] Think Progress, May 8, 2009</ref>
+
+
===Fighting Donor Disclosure Rules===
+
+
NAM's website states that it opposes proposals for government financing of political campaigns, and furthermore that it
+
:"opposes legislative or regulatory efforts that unduly or unfairly infringe on the right of individuals freely to associate within the political process. It will oppose any efforts to discourage people from contributing to a PAC or candidates from accepting PAC donations to their campaigns."<ref>National Association of Manufacturers, [http://www.nam.org/Issues/Official-Policy-Positions/Infrastructure-Legal-Regulatory-Policy/ILRP-02-Legal-Policy.aspx#209 Legal Policy], organizational website, accessed June 25, 2014.</ref>
+
+
The Center for Responsive Politics wrote in April 2013 that NAM, along with [[Koch Industries]] and the [[US Chamber of Commerce]], had been lobbying "to prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission or Congress from requiring them to disclose donations to politically active nonprofits."<ref name="choma">Russ Choma, "[http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/koch-industries-and-business-groups/ Koch Industries, Business Groups Lobby Against Donor Disclosure]," Center for Responsive Politics, April 25, 2013. Accessed June 25, 2014.</ref> According to the ''New York Times'', earlier that month NAM had joined the [[US Chamber of Commerce]] and the [[Business Roundtable]] in issuing "a rare joint letter to the chief executives of Fortune 200 companies, encouraging them to stand against proxy resolutions and other proposals from shareholder activists demanding more disclosure of political spending."<ref name="sec donations"/>
===Opposition to Sanctions on Russia===
===Opposition to Sanctions on Russia===
Line 37:
Line 53:
===NAM v. SEC (Opposition to Conflict Minerals Rule)===
===NAM v. SEC (Opposition to Conflict Minerals Rule)===
−
Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in 2010, required annual disclosure about "whether any conflict minerals that are necessary to the functionality or production of a product of the person, as defined in the provision, originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country."<ref name="sec">Securities and Exchange Commission, [http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dodd-frank/speccorpdisclosure.shtml Dodd-Frank, Specialized Corporate Disclosure], May 30, 2013. Accessed June 25, 2013.</ref> This "conflict minerals rule" was challenged when NAM, along with the [[
U. S.
Chamber of Commerce]] and the [[Business Roundtable]], petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals to review rules the SEC developed to implement Section 1502, arguing that the SEC had violated procedural requirements and that the rule requirements violated the First Amendment by compelling speech.<ref name="fedregs">Leland E. Beck, "[http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/2014/04/14/d-c-circuit-vacates-dodd-frank-conflict-minerals-provision-sec-rule-as-violating-first-amendment-free-speech/ D.C. Circuit Vacates Dodd-Frank Conflict Minerals Provision & SEC Rule as Violating First Amendment Free Speech], Federal Regulations Advisor, April 14, 2014. Accessed June 25, 2014.</ref> According to legal representation for Amnesty International, which intervened as a respondent in the case, a July 2013 decision by the district court rejected these arguments, but the court of appeals
+
Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in 2010, required annual disclosure about "whether any conflict minerals that are necessary to the functionality or production of a product of the person, as defined in the provision, originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country."<ref name="sec">Securities and Exchange Commission, [http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dodd-frank/speccorpdisclosure.shtml Dodd-Frank, Specialized Corporate Disclosure], May 30, 2013. Accessed June 25, 2013.</ref> This "conflict minerals rule" was challenged when NAM, along with the [[
US
Chamber of Commerce]] and the [[Business Roundtable]], petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals to review rules the SEC developed to implement Section 1502, arguing that the SEC had violated procedural requirements and that the rule requirements violated the First Amendment by compelling speech.<ref name="fedregs">Leland E. Beck, "[http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/2014/04/14/d-c-circuit-vacates-dodd-frank-conflict-minerals-provision-sec-rule-as-violating-first-amendment-free-speech/ D.C. Circuit Vacates Dodd-Frank Conflict Minerals Provision & SEC Rule as Violating First Amendment Free Speech], Federal Regulations Advisor, April 14, 2014. Accessed June 25, 2014.</ref> According to legal representation for Amnesty International, which intervened as a respondent in the case, a July 2013 decision by the district court rejected these arguments, but the court of appeals
:"invalidated the requirement that companies use specific language when reporting that their products have “not been found to be DRC-conflict free.” Applying Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), the court of appeals held that requiring this specific descriptor violates regulated entities’ First Amendment right against compelled commercial speech."<ref>Public Citizen Litigation Group, ''[http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/getlinkforcase.cfm?cID=787 National Association of Manufacturers et al. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]'', case description, accessed June 25, 2014.</ref>
:"invalidated the requirement that companies use specific language when reporting that their products have “not been found to be DRC-conflict free.” Applying Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), the court of appeals held that requiring this specific descriptor violates regulated entities’ First Amendment right against compelled commercial speech."<ref>Public Citizen Litigation Group, ''[http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/getlinkforcase.cfm?cID=787 National Association of Manufacturers et al. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]'', case description, accessed June 25, 2014.</ref>