US Chamber of Commerce Vindicates Vulgar Marxism

At a time when Marxism has appeared all but dead in the United States, its flag carried mainly by ignored holdouts in university social science departments, it is ironic that compelling support for Marxist thought is now being provided by the United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC). This is no half-hearted Marxist stuff but “vulgar Marxism” in its most unabashed form: the USCC has engaged in a systematic and comprehensive effort to seize control of the various instruments of the legal apparatus to wield the law on behalf of corporate interests.

According to Chamber President Tom Donohue, in the 2004 election “the Chamber put 215 people on the ground in 31 states; sent 3.7 million pieces of mail and more than 30 million e-mails; made 5.6 million phone calls.” After the election, in a memo to the Chamber’s Board of Directors, Donohue drooled over the anticipated fruits of this effort: “The expanded numbers of pro-business votes in the Senate and the House—along with a team of reasonable regulators and appointees in the executive branch—will mean a more favorable hearing for some of our key priorities, including legal reform, comprehensive energy legislation, permanent tax relief, market-based healthcare, and pension reform, and balanced workplace, environmental and corporate governance rules.”

By a wide margin, the Chamber leads all other single organizations in lobbying expenditures, spending $53 million in 2004 and almost $40 million in 2003 to promote these positions.

The Chamber also engaged in a “targeted campaign” in 16 State Supreme Court electoral contests in 2004 to secure the election of pro-business judges. Stanton D. Anderson, the Chamber’s Chief Legal Officer, claimed after the election that the Chamber “won every race in which we were involved.” Anderson proudly held up this successful effort to seat friendly judges as “an example of what the business community can do.” The Chamber has put an estimated $50 million into state judicial elections since 1998.

The Chamber has its own in-house litigation firm, the National Chamber Litigation Group, which actively brings suits and intervenes in ongoing litigation to defend business interests. Among other cases, the Chamber recently sued the Securities and Exchange Commission to invalidate a new rule which requires that three fourths of the board of directors of mutual funds be independent.

The Chamber of Commerce has thus implemented a well-funded and well-executed effort to seat favorable legislators, to secure the laws and regulations they desire, to have friendly executive branch and administrative agency officials carry out these laws and regulations, to aggressively participate in litigation to advance their agenda, and to insure that presiding judges are receptive to their positions.

This is just one organization. Add the activities of individual corporations and the various industries the Chamber represents, combined with the activities of other similar organizations (including another heavyweight, PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade association), and the vast scope of this impressive effort will come vaguely into view. And there are many indications that this effort to seize control of the law and use it as an instrument to further corporate interests is proving successful.

So inured to this have we become that mention of it is regularly greeted by the Left, after a flash of outrage, with a shrug of resignation. Perhaps the only consolation is for the few die hard vulgar Marxists (if there are any left) who get to say that they were correct after all in claiming that law is a raw instrument of elite economic domination. A fascinating characteristic of this effort is that it is carried on openly, brazenly, with no pretense about the supposed neutrality of law, and little bother with hiding behind an ideological cover. When pressed for a justification, the stock line is offered (albeit dressed up a bit) that what’s good for Corporate America is in the public interest. But most often no justification in terms of the common good is asked for or given. Today the law is seen as an instrument by the Right and the Left, and whoever is able to control it gets to use it.

My thanks to Jack Balkin for inviting me to participate as a guest blogger.