U.S. Chamber ads damage its brand

Monitor staff

Last modified: 10/25/2010 12:00:00 AM

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has become one of the nation's biggest sponsors of political attack ads. It is playing a role in New Hampshire races and has spent nearly $1.5 million on negative ads targeting Senate candidate Paul Hodes.



According to the Federal Election Commission, more than 90 percent of the U.S. Chamber's advertising favors Republicans. That puts local chambers of commerce, Concord's included, in a terrible position, since their members come from across the political spectrum.



Earlier this month, the Greater Hudson Chamber of Commerce voted not to renew its membership in the national organization because of the national chamber's aggressive advertising campaign. One member of the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce has quit in protest over the local group's affiliation with the national chamber, and other members have complained.



The Concord chamber, says Director Tim Sink, dislikes the negative ads and has complained about them repeatedly to no avail. But as one of only two chambers in the state accredited by the national organization, it benefits too much from the training opportunities and other benefits of membership in the U.S. Chamber to give up its affiliation, Sink says.



The national organization's ad campaign is damaging the chamber brand. The hard-hitting ads are sometimes of questionable accuracy. Their strident tone is not in keeping with the public's image of what a chamber of commerce should be.



The U.S. Chamber has said it plans to spend $75 million on advertising in hopes of creating a more business-friendly Congress. So far, it has aired nearly 8,500 ads nationally. The chamber has also paid for ads attacking health care reform and other positions taken by the Obama administration. Its campaign to minimize the problem of global warming convinced Apple, Nike and other companies to drop out.



Traditionally, chambers of commerce did not endorse or attack political candidates. When they do, in inevitably alienates some members and weakens the chamber's ability to be seen as a representative of all businesses. But many ads in the U.S. Chamber's current campaign all but shout, "don't vote for this candidate."



Worse yet, the U.S. Chamber's aggressive campaign to influence the outcome of scores of elections is being funded secretly. The group refuses to divulge the names of its donors on the grounds that in the past, it has led to picketing and intimidation.



Under current law, it has no obligation to do so. That means that voters can't know who is paying to influence them and what their motives might be.



Until the disclosure laws are changed - something the U.S. Chamber spends heavily to lobby against - the group is likely to continue raising money secretly and spend heavily in an attempt to purchase the Congress it wants. If it does, local chambers will face more defections and increasing pressure to sever their relationship with the national organization.



Correction



Friday's editorial erred by saying that taxpayer-subsidized flexible spending accounts covered tummy tucks and other cosmetic surgery. Unless the surgery is deemed medically necessary, it does not.





