Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Chamber of Commerce Accused of Tax Fraud
WASHINGTON - With a war chest rivaling that of the Republican Party itself, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has emerged in the last year as perhaps the Obama administration's most-well-financed rival on signature policy debates like health care and financial regulation.
Critics on the left have long complained about the chamber's outsize influence. But now they are taking on the business association directly, charging in a complaint filed Friday with the Internal Revenue Service that it violated tax codes by laundering millions of dollars meant for charitable work from a group with ties to the insurance giant A.I.G.
The complaint was brought by a group called U.S. Chamber Watch, which was created four months ago - with the strong financial backing of labor unions - to scrutinize the Chamber of Commerce's growing influence and provide a counterbalance.
But chamber officials said they had complied with all tax laws and dismissed the complaint as a political ploy.
A chamber spokeswoman, Tita Freeman, said its opponents "are desperately looking for opportunities to undermine the chamber's efforts to promote free markets and economic growth."
The I.R.S. refused to comment on the complaint, citing the confidentiality of taxpayer records.
I.R.S. regulators have often been wary of wading into political grievances, particularly after evidence emerged during the Watergate scandal that the Nixon White House had sought to use the agency for political purposes.
But in recent years the agency has occasionally gotten involved in politically tinged controversies. In one high-profile case in 2004, Republican complaints led it to open an investigation into the N.A.A.C.P.'s tax-exempt status after the group's leader criticized President George W. Bush in a speech. The I.R.S. concluded two years later that the remarks did not violate the group's nonprofit restrictions on political activity.
At issue in the complaint against the Chamber of Commerce is whether the group mixed funds for charitable and noncharitable political purposes in violation of tax codes.
The chamber, often using expensive mass-market radio and TV spots, has weighed in on many major public policy debates in recent months, including the Obama administration's health care policy, business regulations, campaign finance laws and Internet rules, as well as job creation and the threat of tax hikes. On many issues, it has pushed for less government regulation in favor of free-market incentives.
Now the chamber's political arm is turning to the November elections, and it expects to spend $50 million or more to push pro-business candidates, usually Republicans. As part of a wave of new commercials broadcast this week, the chamber's California affiliate attacked Senator Barbara Boxer - a Democrat running for re-election against Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard - and accused Ms. Boxer of "destroying jobs" by voting against business.
Cyrus Mehri, a Washington lawyer who brought the I.R.S. complaint on behalf of U.S. Chamber Watch, said in an interview that the chamber's current political activities were, in effect, being underwritten with money intended for charitable work.
The complaint focuses on loans and grants totaling about $18 million that were made beginning in 2003 to a nonprofit affiliate, the National Chamber Foundation, by the Starr Foundation, a charity started by the founder of A.I.G. and now led by Maurice R. Greenberg, the insurer's former chairman.
Lawyers for Chamber Watch said their research, based largely on public tax filings, found that none of the principal on some $12 million in loans had been paid back and that the money appeared to have been given to the chamber's foundation for unrestricted use.
The lawyers said that the money, in violation of nonprofit restrictions, was ultimately funneled to the chamber itself and used to finance broader political causes, including support for legal tort reform to shield companies like A.I.G. from liability. Mr. Greenberg himself had worked to promote restrictions on lawsuits, the complaint notes.
"You have millions of dollars improperly going to the chamber," said Mr. Mehri, who drafted the complaint with Gail M. Harmon, a Washington lawyer specializing in tax law. "This is not a technical violation."
But Stan Harrell, chief financial officer for the Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview Friday that the chamber's lawyers and its accountants at Ernst & Young had reviewed the Starr Foundation funding and found that it complied with all relevant tax law.
"We've never had an issue, period," Mr. Harrell said. He said that Chamber Watch, which was created by a federation of five unions called Change to Win, was simply trying to create trouble for the chamber because of its opposing political views.
"That's democracy. From time to time, people make allegations," he said. "If their real interest was proper accounting, they'd be talking to us. This is political."
Mr. Harrell said that the funding from the Starr Foundation was listed in tax documents as a loan only in the most technical sense and that it was never intended to be paid back. Instead, he said, the money was restricted for long-term use on educational and research projects as part of the chamber's capital plan and was invested by the chamber to ensure the Starr Foundation a set rate of return.
"We wanted to make sure we guaranteed the investment return," he said. "Legally, that has to be represented as a loan. This was all done very scrupulously. If anything, we overdisclosed the transaction" in the group's federal tax returns, he said.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

13 Comments so far
Show AllThis seems like political warfare, and is really sick. I can understand unions getting involved in something like this. I hope and pray the White House had nothing to do with it. I remember when Obama and his people tried to get rid of FOX News, and how that backfired on them. This would be way worse.
It really brings up memories of Richard Nixon,and his "enemies list". We sure don't need another President like that.
The "law" IS political warfare. Nothing about written, human law is 'natural'... right up to the prohibition on murder, as murder would then be impossible, or against a natural law. So, what is the phrase... whoever has the gold makes the rules, and whoever makes the rules gets the gold?
Now, to cast unions as being 'political' in challenging the Chamber of Capitalist Pigs/Temple of Ayn Rand, and to find something bad in that, is the highest hypocricy- political warfare is ALWAYS what the Chamber is all about, and Only politcal warfare is its raison d'etre. So for the Chamber's spokesperson to claim that the Scheme of using charitable contributions for the Chamber's nefarious political purposes has been 'vetted' by their 'accountants' and 'lawyers' is merely to say that these 'professionals' have found a political way around the charity laws with wordplay and funny numbers. Just ask the partners of Enron and Arthur Anderson Accounting about wordplay and funny numbers.
Wall Streeter Pete Peterson has set up a tax-exempt tax-free tax-shelterd Billion-dollar 'Charity' to 'help' the 'friends' of the Capitalist system and 'educate' (catapault the propaganda on) the populace (suckers) about the joys and goodness of "free"-market Capitalism, and sternly warn them on the evils of socialism and the 'enemies' of wonderful wonderful unfettered Capitalism. Just ask billionaire Pete! Now, is this not political?
Is this, and the Chamber's steaming pile of shit discussed above, what is meant by "Charity" in America today?
No, it would be best if the Chamber were completely destroyed. It is Always Against the Common Good and completely Always For the Oligarchy/Plutocracy, but it knows that lobbying and politics and the people's government's rules and money is actually its (and the oligarchy's) bread and butter- not fair enterprise and social benefit.
So finally, someone is stepping up to challenge the Chamber's right-wing hyenas. And I don't care if the challenge is backed by the White House or not (though I would bet it is most certainly not, considering the current administration). Good for them, and good for unions. United we stand.
But the "legal filing" method is the WRONG way to go at the Chamber of Commerce!
To weaken/destroy the influence of these people, we will need to both hollow out their rank-and-file and undercut their "sell".
Their rank-and-file are small business owners, and their "sell" is that they are the "local" people that are looking out for "business", which we are meant to read as "jobs" which we are meant to know is code for "a decent/better life".
Both your typical small business owner and your typical townsperson who needs a job from small business owners in this country regard Lawyers, and most everything to do with Lawyers, as just about as bad as Satan himself. So any action that can be portrayed as "some lawyer filed some damned legal thing to which hunt for the Unions and the Liberals", as this one can and is being portrayed, is mistaken and counter-productive action. (remember that the Unions have been so small a portion of the employed for so long and become so exclusionist that most workers now resent them -from a genuine workers POV!)
Countering the Chamber of Commerce requires building a counter-organization of citizens, also divided City-by-City, State-by-State, that genuinely supports "a decent/better life" through not just "jobs", but fufilling jobs, at good pay, and for a beneficial social purpose, and though other non-"job" means as well. It will also require promoting the genuine "local small business people" OVER the large corporations, as opposed to the Chamber of Commerce's exploitation and trickery of them for the benefit of the Big Boys.
If Chamber Watch would do this I would be for Chamber Watch.
As it stands, the one-million-and-oneth time the "Left" goes for the Lawyers-and-Courts Solution gets a yawning frown from me.
-matti.
Hello Matti,
The Chamber of Commerce is dominated by huge corporations because they give it the most money. Do you really think that the Chamber's Board of Directors is elected one company, one vote?
Also, it's about time we deflated the notion of "small business." Did you know that according to the law and the Small Business Administration, a small business is defined as anything with less than 500 employees. Five Hundred. Hardly anyone knows that. When they think of "small business" they think of their friendly mom and pop store. The reality of the money is that "small business" means a small steel mill. The mom & pop store has NOTHING to do with running the Chamber except that that is what they want us to think. So all the small business people and their friends will vote and think their way. And so far, their propaganda strategy, the strategy of the giant corporations, is working pretty well.
But if you can build a counter - institution to the Chamber which really will promote good pay and satisfying jobs, I'm with you. Usually they call those unions, and they are in decline because, since Reagan, businesses get away with the illegal act of firing people who are too pro - union. It's wonderful how laws the chamber doesn't like manage to get repealed or ignored. Is that what you want?
Too many words. We suggest that you show more respect for people's time by shortening your comment.
I agree, yours is far too long.
Too many words?
I'd rather have too many than none. Some folks don't have time to cut a perfect piece.
I've seen far lot worse, some of it includes my own crap.
Now, David Michael Green...there's a guy who could take a chain saw to his stuff and they'd still be way too long. But people still read it.
No offense to U.S. Chamber Watch, which I'm sure is a worthy organization-- but it will be impotently "watching" this nefarious gang of ruling-class parasites until doomsday.
Unless, perhaps, someone devises a sleazy hit-and-run stunt to successfully "ACORN" it to extinction. Good luck!
What is good for the Chamber is I am sure good for the rest of us. So don't worry.
Isn't the present Chamber of Commerce a front to further the interests of Businesses, whether it be cheap labor or outsourcing? Why should we surprised of corruption or conflict of interest that arises from it?
But no worries. They'll be bailed out before long !
Your local town or city Chamber of Commerce will tell you that their main purpose is to help small businesses in their region to grow and flourish. And yet, the very people they support for office in Congress are opposed to the Obama stimulus for small business. Go Figure
Tita reviles causes of economic downturn saying outside forces "undermine the chamber's efforts to promote free markets and economic growth."