Re: Chamber of Horrors: US Chamber of Commerce must be stoppe...

[Guest guest]

,

Its worse than just translated into easy speak. The Manhattan Institute

specifically paid for a translation of the ACOEM BS because they

specifically wanted something for judges. I have Kelman under oath stating

this to be

the case. What they wrote for judges was that all claims of illness from

the toxins of mold were just a result of trial lawyers, media and junk

science. Nice way to educate the courts, eh?

..

In a message dated 10/28/2009 6:24:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

MLMJ75@... writes:

The US Chamber of Commerce, along with the Manhattan Institute, paid to

have the oft times debunked American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine's Mold Guidance for physicians translated into

" easy speak " so

it could be distributed to the insurance, banking, construction, and other

stakeholder industries so they could defend themselves against mold

illnesses and claims....but you already know this.

Mulvey son

****************************************************************************

********************************

the best policy

Chamber of Horrors

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce must be stopped. Here's how to do it.

By Eliot Spitzer

Updated Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009, at 1:23 AM ET

____________________________________

The _U.S. Chamber of Commerce_ (_http://www.uschambehttp://www.us_

(http://www.uschamber.com/default) ) —the

self-proclaimed voice of business in Washington—has been wrong on

virtually

every major public-policy issue of the past decade: financial

deregulation,

tax and fiscal policy, global warming and environmental enforcement,

consumer protection, health care reform …

The chamber remains an unabashed voice for the libertarian worldview that

caused the most catastrophic economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

And the chamber's view of social justice would warm Scrooge's heart. It is

the chamber's right to be wrong, and its right to argue its preposterous

ideas aggressively, as it does through vast expenditures on lobbyists and

litigation. Last year alone, the chamber spent more than $91 million on

lobbying, and, according to lobby tracker Opensecrets.lobbying, and,

according to lobb

_twice as much on lobbying_

(_http://www.opensecrhttp://www.opehttp://www.opensht & indexType=i_

(http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a & indexType=s) ) during the

past

12 years as any other corporation or

group.

The problem is, the chamber is doing all this with our money. The chamber

survives financially on the dues and support of its members, which are

most

of America's major corporations listed on the stock exchange. The chamber

derives its political clout from the fact that its membership includes

these

corporations. Yet we—you and I—own the companies that support the chamber

and permit it to propagate its views. Our passive, permissive attitude

toward the management of the companies we own has enabled the chamber to

be

one of the primary impediments to the reform of markets, health care,

energy

policy, and politics that we have all been calling for. It is time for

that

to change.

How, you might ask, do we own these companies? Public pension funds and

mutual funds are the largest owners of equities in the market. They are

the

institutional shareholders that have the capacity to push management—and

the

boards of the corporations. Yet the mutual funds and pension funds have

failed to do so. They have failed to control the management of the

companies

they own because the actual owners of those mutual funds and pension funds—

you and I—have failed to raise our voices. We haven't even asked

questions.

Mutual funds, until recently, didn't even disclose how they voted the

proxies of shares they owned. When asked why not at a forum I was part of

several years ago, the general counsel of one of the largest mutual fund

companies tried to explain that it would be too expensive to make such

disclosure.

The answer was patently ridiculous, and it hid the much more important

reason for nondisclosure: Mutual funds rarely if ever want to vote in

opposition to management because mutual funds want to be included among

the list of

401(k) options the company chooses for its employees. Mutual funds make

money by increasing the size of the portfolios they manage, and if

management

knocks them off the 401(k) list, they will lose that revenue stream. This

basic conflict of interest has neutered mutual funds. They are not

meaningful checks on corporate mismanagement.

The comptrollers and treasurers who run public pension funds (often

elected

officials), have also failed to flex their political muscles. The

passivity of the publicly elected officials who have the capacity to raise

these

issues has been a bit surprising.

So what should be done? The issue of passive institutional ownership is

one

of the most vexing and serious problems in American business. Expecting

CEOs and boards to run companies properly without our input is a

prescription

for failure. But at least on the one issue of corporations playing

politics with our money through support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

there is

an easy answer.

The elected comptrollers and treasurers who agree—as a vast majority will—

that the Chamber of Commerce has a distorted view of both economic and

political policy should demand that each company in which they own stock

drop

its membership in the chamber. If the CEO doesn't agree, the public

pension

funds should pressure the board to drop the chamber membership. If one

activist state comptroller begins to build this coalition, the other state

pension funds will follow.

In recent weeks, Apple and two energy companies—PG & E and Exelon—have

defected from the chamber, objecting to its environmental policies. The

_Wall

Street Journal editorial page_

(_http://online.http://online.<Whttp://online.<Whttp://online.<Whttp://onlin

http_

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574469521188829810.html)

) of course views this bit of wisdom as

heresy and counter to shareholder interest.

If elected comptrollers and treasurers do take a stand against the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, expect a hue and cry from the typical voices. They

will

complain that elected comptrollers and treasurers are injecting politics

into corporate management. To which the answer should be: No, they are

trying

to take politics out of it! It is corporate leadership, through its

support

of the chamber, that has injected politics into the corporations that we

own. We are reminding corporate leaders that they are our fiduciaries. As

long as the chamber and the CEOs who are supposed to be our

representatives

are using our money to be overtly political, it is our duty to respond. If

we are passive, we permit the chamber to hijack our funds and companies to

support positions antithetical to our own views. Waking pension funds and

mutual funds from their slumber on this relatively easy issue might

finally

begin the necessary process of fixing mismanaged corporations.begin the

is the former governor of the state of New York.

Article URL: __http://www.slate.http://www.slath_

(http://www.slate.com/id/2232441/_)

(_http://www.slate.http://www.slat_ (http://www.slate.com/id/2232441/) )

Copyright 2009 Washingtonpost.Copyright 2009 Washingtonpost.<W

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

You are so right, Sharon. We need to continue to fight to get the

corruption and conflicts of interest out of this issue.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, .

I am about to go to the Atty Gen of Ca. regarding this lawsuit Kelman filed

against me and the San Diego courts' handling of the matter. The sole

claim of the case is that my word " altered " was a malicious accusation that

Kelman is one who would commit perjury.

Since September 21, 2005, I have been informing the San Diego courts with

uncontroverted evidence that Kelman was committing perjury as to why I

would have malice. SEVEN San Diego judges and justices have ignored this

uncontroverted evidence of criminal activity on the part of Kelman and his

attorney when making rulings in this case. I have now provided the courts with

no less than 23 exhibits to prove the perjury.

It is glaringly obvious that NO ONE~ not judges, not politicians, not

attorneys ~ wants to go up against the US Chamber directly. They all saw what

was done to Hillary Clinton back in the 90's over the matter. I'lll do a

lot to help others. But I will be damned if I am going to end up labeled a

malicious liar for the exact same speech that has helped to change US health

policy and many court rulings. (you know the Townsend case in AZ?

a sent me a check for $1000 because much of my research helped her case.

That is a FIRST!)

Screw 'em. I don't have constituents and I could care less what the US

Chamber does to squash the little guy or demean politicans. I will not

tolerate it when so many lives are at stake. .

I'll do it myself. They got Al Capone for tax evasion. I have Kelman for

criminal perjury and I have SEVEN judges and justices ignoring the evidence

of it.

_http://www.blip.tv/file/2063366/_ (http://www.blip.tv/file/2063366/)

In a message dated 10/29/2009 3:31:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, MLMJ75

writes:

You are so right, Sharon. We need to continue to fight to get the

corruption and conflicts of interest out of this issue.