Blog

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

Republican fund-raisers are treating Americans like little children, as if the GOP knows best and must shelter the youngsters from the truth.

It’s like when a kindergartner asks his father if mommy is coming home soon, and the widower replies that she’s on a long business trip. The parent is attempting to shield the child from the cruel truth, afraid the little one can’t handle it.

That’s what Republican campaign fund-raising groups are doing by concealing their donors from the public. The GOP does not trust Americans to handle the information. Republican operatives want to shield voters from knowing who is actually paying for GOP attack ads. The GOP fears the consequences if Americans know the truth – exactly which giant corporations and Wall Street banksters are funding vicious screeds against Democrats because those covert donors believe Republicans will deliver for big business.

The secret GOP benefactors are right about one thing: A Republican majority will work for the rich. In a study of income growth post WWII, Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels determined that earnings rose faster at all income levels under Democratic administrations, but especially for the middle class and the poor. Under Republican presidents, the wealthiest benefited the most, increasing income inequality.

After the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades of precedent in January in its Citizens United ruling, defining corporations as “persons” and permitting them to pour unlimited cash into political advertising, Democrats offered legislation to temper that newly-granted corporate power. Called the DISCLOSE Act – for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections — it would have required revelation of corporate donations.

Republicans wanted concealment of their corporate sources, however, and scuttled the DISCLOSE Act. This freed private political fund-raising groups to take as much money as they can from corporations while providing a cloak of anonymity.

The Republican and Democratic parties still must disclose donors, and unions like the United Steelworkers (USW), which get their political action committee contributions from American members, must provide detailed information on how much they spend, which candidates they support, and the names of people who supply in-kind services as well as the value of the services.

The story of health insurers’ disclosed contributions to political parties reveals why Republicans prefer to keep Americans in the dark about gifts to GOP private fund-raising groups.

Public reports show that last year, the health insurance industry split its donations  between the two parties, but this year, after passage of health insurance reform, the contributions are running three to one for Republicans. The insurance corporations have made their demands clear to Republican beneficiaries. They want Republicans to retain in the law the financial windfalls for insurance corporations – that would be mandates that uninsured Americans get coverage and fines for those who don’t.  And they want Republicans to delete aspects that will cost insurance companies – that would be benefits for Americans like requirements that insurers cover sick children and injunctions against dropping policy holders when they get sick.

Wendell Potter, a former executive at Cigna Corp., one of the nation’s largest health insurance corporations, told Noam N. Levey of the Chicago Tribune:

“The industry would love to have a Republican Congress. They were very, very successful during the years of Republican domination in Washington.”

Voters need to know that insurance corporations overwhelmingly favor Republicans and what the industry expects to get from the GOP. But Americans will not know how much money insurers and other corporations give to shadowy Republican fund-raising groups and what those donors demand.

A New York Times investigation provided some insight into one GOP shadow group, the American Future Fund. It has spent $6 million so far on ads attacking Democrats in 13 states.  The Times discovered that Bruce Rastetter, CEO of Hawkeye Energy Holdings, one of the nation’s largest corn-based ethanol companies, provided the seed money for American Future Fund. The Times determined that American Future Fund money is funding ads to defeat Democrats who sit on legislative committees that directly affect the ethanol industry and agricultural subsidies.

Two other secretive Republican groups, American Crossroads GPS and the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce, plan to spend $145 million to crush Democrats while concealing their funding sources from Americans.

American Crossroads GPS, brainchild of Republican operative Karl Rove, plans to spend $70 million. Mel Sembler, a shopping mall magnate, told the New York Times that wealthy donors have given the GPS group six and seven-figure checks, and Republicans said one donor, who they refused to name, gave several million dollars. Sembler told the Times why clandestine giving is so attractive to corporations:

“They want to be able to be helpful but not be seen by the public as taking sides.”

What they don’t want to be seen doing is lining their pockets by buying Republican politicians. Neither do the Republican beneficiaries.

Like GPS, the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce is an elephant-sized player in the secretive Republican support game. It has spent $25 million on more than 8,000 ads slamming Democrats and backing corporate Republican candidates. It plans to spend $50 million more.

Oddly, the commerce group calls itself the U.S. Chamber while admitting foreign firms and soliciting funds from corporations in places like Bahrain, India and Singapore whose interests may conflict with those of American companies and American citizens. An investigation by Think Progress, a project of the non-partisan Center for American Progress Action Fund, revealed that the so-called U.S. Chamber has accepted at least $885,000 from 84 foreign firms, money that it placed in the same account from which it draws funds to sponsor ads attacking Democratic candidates.

The so-called U.S. Chamber denied that it illegally co-mingles money it gets from foreign corporations with funds it uses to attack Democrats. When Think Progress and others asked the so-called U.S. Chamber to divulge the account’s firewall to the public, the so-called U.S. Chamber responded by repeating its assurance that it does nothing wrong and asserting, “We are not obligated to discuss our internal procedures.”

Basically, the so-called U.S. Chamber is saying, “trust us,” to the American public. On the other hand, the “U.S. Chamber” and groups like American Crossroads GPS don’t trust the American public to know their donor lists. What they don’t trust is that Americans will do what the GOP wants on Nov. 2 if Republicans’ corporate donors are exposed.

The USW challenges the “U.S. Chamber” and GOP funding groups like American Crossroads GPS to show their trust in the American people by disclosing their donors.

***

Leo W. Gerard also is a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Committee and chairs the labor federation’s Public Policy Committee. President Barack Obama recently appointed him to the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. He serves as co-chairman of the BlueGreen Alliance and on the boards of the Apollo Alliance, Campaign for America’s Future and the Economic Policy Institute.  He is a member of the IMF and ICEM global labor federations and was instrumental in creating Workers Uniting, the first global union.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

My union, the United Steelworkers (USW), and three paper manufacturers will have free traders and editorial boards across the nation sputtering, spitting and name calling again this week.

They started labeling us “protectionist” last week when President Obama made what should have been considered a straightforward decision. He implemented a recommendation from the independent, bi-partisan International Trade Commission (ITC) to place tariffs on tires imported from China. The USW had started that process by seeking sanctions in April under special trade safeguard rules, called Section 421, which the Chinese had agreed to obey to gain entrance to the World Trade Organization.

Now we’ve filed a new trade case. We did it with no disrespect or lack of hospitality toward Chinese officials as they arrived in the city of our international headquarters  – Pittsburgh – for the G-20 summit. Proof of that is we included as a defendant in this case China’s fellow G-20 country of Indonesia, who can keep them company in court.

This is not a Section 421 but a more traditional unfair trade case about coated paper, the kind used for car brochures and annual reports. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce found egregious dumping of this paper and improper subsidies by the Chinese and Indonesian governments. But later the ITC refused to impose sanctions because it decided the U.S. industry hadn’t been adequately injured.

We believe we’ve suffered sufficiently now.

But we know the free traders and editorial boarders will vilify us. They’ve taken up with the Chinese government. And let me be clear that I mean government. The USW is in solidarity with Chinese and Indonesian workers who suffer abuse at the hands of their employers. It is governmental policies that injure us both and that we oppose. Our intent is to hold governments to promises they made to abide by international trade regulations – pledges sworn to gain entrance to the World Trade Organization.

Those rules were meant to make free trade fair.

We want fair trade. Geez. They’ll call us “protectionist” for that – like they did with the tire tariff decision. The New York Times derided the tire tariff a “protectionist remedy.” The Chicago Tribune slammed it as “blatantly protectionist.” A Wall Street Journal columnist said Obama imposed the tariff, not because it was recommended by the ITC, but because the president “owed favors to his friends in Big Labor.” 

These people don’t know what they are talking about. The New York Times, for example, said, “China has not been competing unfairly on tires – just more effectively, mainly because of its far lower labor costs.”

It is unfair trade to abuse workers by not paying them your own country’s minimum wage, by failing to give them your own country’s required days off and other benefits, by exposing them  to grossly hazardous working conditions. Has the New York Times investigated the Chinese tire workers’ situation, the way it has other Chinese workers’, to determine if they are being mistreated in these ways like so many Chinese workers? If so, it provided no evidence.

In addition, just two paragraphs later, the Times lists numerous unfair trading practices it acknowledges China engages in, practices that give it unfair advantages when selling tires on the U.S. market, including manipulating its currency. Those advantages are far more significant to the price of tires than labor costs.

Similarly, the Chicago Tribune editorial was written by someone who apparently did precious little research. It claims the tire tariffs will cause “whopping price hikes,” even though Charles Uthus, vice president of the Automotive Trade Policy Council, which opposed sanctions, calculated that the additional cost per tire, at the tariffs recommended by the ITC but later lowered by Obama, would be no more than $3.50. The Tribune says the tariffs will not bring jobs back home – but the ITC determined they would. Best of all, the Tribune asserts that the tariffs will prompt manufacturers to move production from China to countries without tariffs. Really? Tariffs that will last only three years will prompt manufacturers to abandon plants that cost $180 million to build?

These people are in love with an ideal: Free trade. It doesn’t exist between the U.S. and China. The rules of free trade prohibit subsidizing exports, forcing foreign investors to transfer technology and mandating foreign manufacturers export all products made in the host country. China so routinely does such prohibited stuff that Cooper Tire provided sworn testimony about it in our Section 421 case. Cooper testified that China required Cooper to export all of the tires from its new Chinese plant for five years. 

China cheats. We’re just asking that they follow the rules they agreed to when they joined the World Trade Organization – the same sort of rules they will be discussing this week at the G-20. That’s not protectionism.

The free traders and the editorial boarders also belittled the tire case because none of the tire companies joined the USW. It should be obvious why companies like Cooper could not. And let’s make it clear, Goodyear, which has agreed to invest $600 million in its U.S. plants, made a point of remaining neutral.

In the paper case, the free traders are going to have to choke back that scorn. Three manufacturers are in it with us: Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage Corp., and Sappi Fine Paper North America . Two of them, Sappi and NewPage, have been forced to close plants in the two years since the ITC didn’t see enough damage in the U.S. market to impose sanctions in 2007. Those shut downs cost nearly 1,000 workers their jobs and severely injured the mill towns of Muskegon, Mich., and Kimberly, Wis.

Don’t just take my word, the word of someone who the Wall Street Journal would dismiss as “protectionist Big Labor,” owed a big favor by President Obama. Listen to what businessmen have to say about China and Indonesia:

This is John Cappy, president and CEO of Appleton, “Our goal is to restore fair competition to the marketplace. We are willing to compete with anyone on a fair playing field.”

Here is Rick Willett, president and CEO of NewPage talking about China, “What we want here is simply enforcement of the rules they signed on to in order to be part of the World Trade Organization.” 

And, finally, there’s Mark Gardner, president and CEO of Sappi, who explains that his company clearly believes in free trade because it imports paper made in its European mills to the United States as well as manufacturing paper here: “We want the laws enforced so we can compete on a fair basis.”

Hey, Wall Street Journal, how about those CEOs?