tv Book Discussion on The Influence Machine CSPAN December 26, 2015 1:47pm-3:02pm EST
outside the theater. >> you're watching bosh tv on c-span2. television for serious readers. here's a look at what is on primetime tonight. we kick off the evening at 7:00 eastern with a panel of political scholars and commentators look back at the new york city mayoral campaign of william farm buck lee. then tj styles talks be the life and military career of general custer. at 10:00, darcy olson sideses down on after words to talk about the restrictions on using medical treatment deemed experimental or not available for terminally ill diseases. and tonight at 11:00, win strom groom profiles the careers of the generals of world war ii. that all happens tonight on c-span 2's booktv. >> alyssa katz is next. her book "the influence machine" looks at the influence of the u.s. chamber of commerce.
>> thank you everybody, and thank you so much for being here here and for that introduction as well. this is not going to be a late discussion by any stretch but you'll final it worthwhile. i'll speak for a while and then engage in questions and answers with you in the audience. this is a -- like i said headquartersy subject, crucially important for this nation as we head into the 2016 elects. and that is the mean by which business business bs have moved to steer the american political process their way, and by and large, by no means entirely but by and large, they're succeeding. in its entirety and complexity, this is a story far, far bigger than any one book can hold. it includes such forces as the
koch brothers and their far-reaching networks that are as we speak raising enormous amounts of money to influence the presidential and congressional races and they have the a huge network of donors and also includes a whole swarm of super pacs and dark money groups that are forming alongside pretty much -- at least half of the republican field for president. again, much like we'll talk about with the chamber of commerce. secret donors. deciding or like to decide the outcomes of a elections in the country. no limits at all on their fundraising spending on politics, and this is pretty new in american politics. but there's a reason that i chose the chamber of commerce as a subject for my book. and it's because this single organization sums up the story of how we got here to this
place, writ -- where it is possible and by and large legal -- pretty much everything i talk about in the book operates within the law because the chamber has figured out how to use some of the resources it raises from major businesses to in fact change the laws. change election laws. change the landscape politically, change who is in congress, in order to create a friendlier environment to advance the agenda of its members and these large donor whose identities they keep secret. and this story of the chamber helps explain why its that we see congress, the court, moving very quickly away in many cases from some very, very pressing needs we have as a society.
and it's really making -- it's really changing the balance in washington from a climate in which the premises that congress is there to serve the public and really it primarily listens to big business first. i want to just show you a slide of the -- this is the building housing the chamber of commerce in washington, and it's right across from the white house on h street, and the jobs banner is supposed to convey this is an organization that is bringing prosperity and opportunity to america, and this banner has gone up in an era where we have seen millions of jobs outsourced
elsewhere, in many cases because of policies that this organization and its memberses have advanced. we are talking about a group that is the largest lobbiest in washington by far. larger than the american medical association, larger than the national association of realtors, larger than general electric, which is constantly lobbying for military contracts. it's in the number one lo -- lobbyity. it spend over a billion dollars in the last dozen years and that's part of what it does. this organization has also led the way the turning congressional elections into arms races of attack ads. now there are lot 0 players in that field and i think we'll see record-breaking amounts of that going on in the 2016 election but the chamber paved the way in having a group that is not affiliated with a candidate, not affiliated with a political party, spending to aggressively
and on attack ads in closely contested races to put a favored member in congress, and by doing this they have helped create the republican majority that now controls both the house and the senate. now, we're also talking about all of these activities and there's a lot more that we'll talk about funds by very small number of donors. the chamber only has about 1500 donors in any given year who even give the organization $5,000 or more. and you have a tiny, tiny number of them that are giving really large amounts of money, and one instance i'll talk about you have an organization giving -- a group of health insurance companies that collectively gave over $100 million in just two years to fight the affordable care act and try to get out of
congress members who had supported it, who could be vulnerable on that point. so, who are these donors? well, the fact is in most cases, in many cases, we do not know because the way this works, the way that chamber of commerce operates-it keeps its contributors secret. it's a trade organization and the internal revenue service allows trade groups to keep secret the identities of their members and donors. but it is impossible through detective work. some -- much of it by other excellent journalists, some i did for this book, some of it is a matter of seeing which companies are represented on the chamber's board of directors. you can begin to figure out who exactly is behind the organization and some very, very particular campaigns it's taken
on. so, what we're -- i cannot stress enough the scale of the activity. the chamber spent 12 other million on lobbying in 2014 alone and promising to spend $100 million in the 2016 election cycle. entirely -- only spent money on congressional races, so the home game plan is to find the contests where they think that spending a few million dollars will make a difference, and then just blitz the poor voters with attack ads until they succumb and either give up and don't go to the polls or go to the polls and they're so scared of whoever it was that the ad attacked that they vote for the other candidate. so, what you see when you look at who the donors are and you begin to do the detective work is that you're primarily talking about industries whose activities come at a very high
cost to society and it's a cost that politicians, the public, scientists, members of the public, have had good reason to question. like labor unions as well have questioned these businesses' practices and said, perhaps we get the societies should move to regulate them in a helpful way. on that list we have tobacco companies, the coal industry, aga business, mega retailers like walmart, health insurers who want anything other than sing single payer national health care. these are the organizations paying a lot of the chamber of commerce's bills and often for very particular campaigns. they're the ones in many cases who are calling the shots, and by banding together they have really, as i said before,
decisively hit the balance of power. not entirely because we have a president who has been extremely creative at both pushing congress when he could and where he could and using executive power to accomplish some pretty important goals, especially on greenhouse gas regulation, and a number of other areas. but again, we're seeing this tipping in the balance, and i should say, even true now that we have sort of seen -- had this moment now where house speaker john boehner has just abdicated his seat, saying can't deal with the zoo over here in effect. and he has -- as i explain the book hat very close ties to the chamber of commerce and has been a key player in advancing some of these agendas its members are pursuing. it would be very interesting to see which way the house
leadership -- whether it goes to someone who from the tea party or more of a kind mainstream business run as boehner was. i have a feeling it will bell someone more like boehner and i'll explain why in a minute. so, i want to -- before we get into the history and how it happened and some of the stuff i talk not my book, want to appreciate what is at stake here, the outcomes of this tipping of the balance of power, which had been very, very strongly in favor of the environment, labor. you have seen this reversal that is -- the playing field is very much in the favor of business, to the point where we now as a nation have -- there are no cap and trade systems for greenhouse gas emissions, no single payer health care, even though we have insane inefficiencies and expense in the privately run system we have.
the declining union membership, inaction on tax loopholes that keep trillions of dollars of u.s. companies' money overseas instead of invested here at home. and even where we have had progress of such as on financial reform, the chamber has played a key role in rolling back some of those provisions. i think in all of this, the affordable care act has endured and survived, and i think only because it is in the end incredibly favorable to the private insurers who are basically -- the american people have been given a mandate to buy their product, and subsidies with which to buy the products, and the insurance companies sought this law because it puts limits on their profits but they can live with that because it's a huge business boost and it for
staaled the end of their industry with the proposition of single payer health care. so i want to talk about 2016 and of course depressant have kris school ball here and won't be able to tell you what is going to happen... we've been moving so strongly in a public interest or action. word aggressive regulation of the environment, consumer
safety, public health, strongly supported environment for labor recognizing as well but the clean air act gave the environmental protection agency released sweeping powers to acquire businesses to -- businesses with an insurance mandates, pretty much regardless of the costs. the chamber weighed in, to fight back and say they shouldn't have to pay for these changes, the basic premise, the clean air act and holds, the number one responsibility in activities is not for profits, profits are important but make sure the public is safe, make sure you
are not polluting the environment excessively. in the same area we saw congress spurred by ralph nader's consumer crusade, passed laws, highway safety and auto safety, you had a law regulating testing of toxic chemicals, creation of the occupational safety and health administration, the power to make surprising sections at workplaces and levy big fines and employers, a book we relied on on research for the influence machine to hold paragraphs and paragraphs of all the regulations is the clean air act. we would think the chamber of commerce would be at the gates,
demanding these laws are not passed, but public opinion has way overpowered but the organization itself was not built at all, was not founded for this kind of combat over images elation, the organization made its influence, priorities and faults but intended to be a itself and work on the system. and imposing very big costs on business. business can't just in to work and less regulation without becoming problematic for them. there is fundamental need for counterbalance and it was naturally the chamber of commerce that traded its role to
provide counterbalance. the chamber had to reinvent itself. going back into history, to explain to these men, so the chamber, hundreds of businesses came together. under president taft, constantly besieged by businesses, fights over the tariff primarily that of other conflicts, and going to congress and begging for things with no rhyme or reason, and big political crises, you figure it out, form an organization and figure out a consensus and tell me what i can do.
i wanted to work out. this premise of consensus that the organization, and for much of its history and close to members on policy positions, and took seriously the mandate not to advocate any one, a very important point, it becomes quite relevant right now for the upcoming elections, the chamber in a 1912 to congress and requested dispensation, known as social welfare organization, and a little later than 1912 once the irs was up and running.
but creating this notion of social welfare organization that represented the interests of the business community, this is the basis on what ever since the chamber's involved in political activity and been able now to engage in elections, and take on the electra worldcom batch and it is this whole process, the institution of social welfare organization that republican presidential campaign, all of the dark many groups are taking on the status of social welfare organization too or trade organization too so therefore we should be free like the chamber has been to go out, raise as much money as we want for elections and go out and decide who's in power. this all started back at the chamber's founding that the internal revenue service allowed this kind of strange group that
wasn't a for-profit business, not a political party to exist. this has big consequences now. so through the depression, the new deal, through the war, postwar prosperity, tended to work for this consensus model and it was difficult because businesses often have interests that conflicted with one another so very often the chamber's response would be to do nothing. so that consensus started to break with this year of the clean air act and ralph nader and the consumer environmental revolution. i talked in the book about this interesting pair, father and son who you will see below and ed
rush senior and ed rush jr. both of whom played a critical role in the chamber of history but in totally different ways to sum up their ear of. both -- sr. was a ceo of state farm insurance starting in the 50s and junior also had the same job, he had just retired last month but he held it. so ed sr. was president of the chamber of commerce. and he caused quite a stir in 1973, went to talk to a group of insurance adjusters or executives in chicago and wanted to tell them that they had to understand that ralph nader who was advocating for all these
measures to promote safety, he was not their enemy, they need to figure out as an industry how to make an alliance, and this is where public sentiment was, this is the future, it was good business and good citizenship as well to do this. the chamber of commerce itself was staffed back in washington, they heard about this, some reporters or colleagues in the insurance industry about that and they flipped out, they just said no, no, no, actually did rush senior is not speaking for the chamber of commerce, he was just saying whenever he was saying and within a year he was out of the organization, the group wasn't ready to take that on. ed rush jr. comes on, played a
critical role in the chamber's history and state farm was being sued and consumers for having put parts in it in his cars and their cars, settlements that were garbage and consumers, it was $1 billion jury award in a court in ellen like and state farm doesn't like this in this class action suit and worked with the chamber of commerce to raise a lot of money to put into the judicial election, a judge on the bench who was different to be counted on to vote against and overturn the jury settlement and did it through the chamber of commerce and the illinois chamber and were able to put their guy on the bench and got this billion dollars jury award
of returned. this is an incredible difference, that is the general lack of the shift. in between ed rush senior and ed rush jr. you had gentleman richard lasher who presided over -- presided over an embarrassing moment in the chamber. he had the nerve to go to congress, this is when bill clinton was promoting his health care plan and was going to mandate employer provided healthcare and richard lasher and his economy sconce staff said that is a great idea. we think this will be very helpful for business. can't say this.
immediately sought a backlash from conservatives on the chamber and conservative pundits and some other ideologues in washington who said we can't have the chamber supporting this socialism. they didn't use that word but that was the reaction. and he was out too. it caused great embarrassment for the chamber of commerce. it was clear another kind of leader for the chamber was needed at that person was tom donahue, the guy on the right, really central figure in my book. he sent words to the chamber under lasher and went to the trucking industry lobbying group and came back and this is how he put it, 1998, 1987, when he returned to the chamber, he said my goal is simple, to build the biggest guerrilla in this town, the most aggressive and vigorous
business advocate our nation has ever seen and this is a letter tom donahue wrote to an executive from philip morris, tobacco giant. philip morris had been a chamber member for many years. what donahue wanted was for that executive to give more money to the chamber and this letter and many other letters and calls and meetings convinced fillmore's to give the chamber a lot of money. they decided to engage in a campaign for a proposed tax, federal tax on cigarettes that was meant to discourage smoking, and in doing so the chamber was going to keep tobacco companies and funding of this advocacy secret. they went out and lobbied, they went out and put up surveys, they fought the tax without ever
mentioning the morris handicap never passed, the chamber was out there saying this is a real threat to business, that congress would dare pass this tax, business cannot stand for a tax on tobacco, this cannot stand and the tax impasse so that was the very beginning of this business model that you conceive how powerful it is to be able to take money from a company that rocked and harmful to society, does not want to and really can't lobby effectively because of member of congress hearing them would say but you are the tobacco industry, how can i tell my voters that i did this for you. it becomes a real public relations nightmare. they can avoid that in the chamber. so the basic business model, the
chamber hires itself out of political shop and then is able to save this is the proposed bill, a threat to all business when it is on behalf of one industry. the identities of these groups are by and large secret but in the book i detailed a few of these in washington, which company had an interest in funding the chamber's advocacy here. so another early examples that came not long after the tobacco bill was remember the bridgestone firestone hearings in congress, we had exploding tires killing people on highway is and senator john mccain, republican, said we ought to do something to help make sure
these companies don't put defective product on the road like this, there have to the consequences so they don't just keep doing this, the chamber when doubt and raise a bunch of money from tire companies, and from insurers who were very nervous about the consequence and were able to very effectively pushback through lobbying efforts against efforts to put stiffer regulations on tires. and the criminal responsibility, that was out. potential payouts the injured people diminished considerably, that was a very successful campaign and build the backbone of an effort the chamber has of legal reform which i mention the
campaign to get rid of -- to get rid of another judge and the friendly judge on the bench in illinois, that was the institute for reform, state farm and other insurers and auto companies have a big role in developing that effort. you also have the climate change, since you ask the general public about the chamber of commerce and its activities in washington they are most likely to talk about what happened when congress was considering various bills to regulate greenhouse gases, the cap and trade system that would basically incentivize overtime reduce greenhouse gas emissions by companies in the american economy. you also around the same time
had the beginnings of efforts by the environmental protection agency to use powers to also regulate greenhouse gas. you have a lot of members of the chamber's board and donors to the chamber that are really invested in coal so coal is another industry like tobacco that is incredibly on the defensive and fighting for its life. natural resources, declared bankruptcy, the coal producer, because of selling energy prices, the rise of natural gas and so on, very much on the defensive. but these coal companies clearly played a really big role in the chamber, not just aggressively fighting cap and trade that getting into at very embarrassing public spectacle. the chamber's head of their
environmental unit had this notion that he dared the obama administration to set up a scopes monkey trial around the question of whether climate change was in fact man-made which is bizarre and hilarious because anthropogenic man-made climate change is and was then at the time he was speaking a matter of settled science and a matter of scientific consensus. this guy in the chamber of commerce coming onto the scene saying actually we need to have a debate about whether this science is real with the premise being that the science could be challenged successfully and if the chamber was going to be the roof to challenge, it was embarrassing and awful and not surprisingly you have many members of the chamber of
commerce were simultaneously promoting themselves as green companies taking on policies and practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, estimated cap and trade, and a lot of these executives hearing this in the chamber, what the heck are you talking about? this is awful and we have to answer to our shareholders and customers who are furious and want to know why we are associated with them. it wasn't just that the customers and shareholders and so on, these companies themselves in the chamber said they have not been consulted about the decision to aggressively challenge greenhouse gas regulations. and questioned whether the chamber was following its own internal rules of member consultation. so a number of organizations
left the chamber very publicly, or the ones we have up there, one is hard to see. nike left the board, energy companies also leaving because they permitted themselves to fractious and have more nuclear, less coal, but public relations debacle in a sense for the chamber but in another sense the chamber of commerce doesn't care that much because it lost these members the proved itself very effective fighter, on behalf of donors, digging in on behalf of the industry, it only proved the
chamber and with health insurance, put in over $100 million despite the affordable care act, and into these really vicious campaigns against members of congress who voted with the affordable care act. but they wanted the chamber as the voice of business to be out there as a credible police for passage of the affordable care act. and it is not even a defeat. with the affordable care act mandate, it is not just the provision, $0.80 of every dollar
on health care, $0.20 at most on overhead. and they fought back. you see again toxic consequences of the chamber's going to bat to pay them. it goes back on behalf of tobacco, tom donahue cultivating the tobacco industry as a friend, tobacco advocates reveals, internationally, in fighting other nations tobacco regulations describing smoking
and tribunal flaps under trade agreements, and particularly working with the ukrainian government to challenge them for this effort to simply put wrappers on cigarettes that would not be attractive to young people or anyone, discourage smoking, the chamber was involved, ukraine and chilly it was involved in effectively suing to try to stop australia from doing this. absolutely atrocious behavior and nothing the chamber should have been involved with and what you saw then was the drugstore chain cvs which fooled tobacco products from shells, reinventing itself as a health care company saying that once again other companies, greenhouse gas fights, we cannot
be part of this, this isn't the right organization for us. antechambers gravitating toward special campaigns, and losing some members but pretty much carrying business as usual. that is the essence of how the.edu chamber of commerce works. but there is advertising but wait, there's more. in addition to lobbying congress and deciding -- the chamber also has a team of attorneys who challenge laws that are objectionable to their contributors, laws that are passed congress long ago like the clean air act or laws like the affordable care act that manage to pass but can be challenged on the basis of
regulation and so forth. one example i talk about in my book that i really find so -- very simple and very appalling but sums up the kind of consequences we see as a result of the challenges regulation that most people never ever hear how about, but really affect what is going on in government and how businesses operate and that is simply the poster you hear, the u.s. department of labor in 2010 in 2010 said it is a dumb idea if every business has in the washroom, lunchroom, wherever you see the sign telling people what the minimum wage is, telling people what their rights are, to safety in the workplace and so on, simply add that people have a right to organize unions, the law of the land since the 1930s this should
not be controversial. this proposal consequences would have been minimal. the chamber, south carolina chamber of commerce thought that proposal and they said the department of labour had not followed the administrative procedure act which is the federal law that describes how government agencies have to go through public hearings, dine every eye and has a treaty to pass regulation and the chamber succeeded using this challenge under the administrative procedure act to block the department of labor mandates so the poster is still abundance from the labor website the any business can post it, very few do. it is why we see declining union membership, workers don't even know they have the right to organize into a union or join a union. the story until now, you can
read more about it in my book, but i do want to share a couple of thoughts, one on the transpacific partnership deal that got agreed to, we don't know a lot of details yet but they should be coming out in coming weeks and of course the 2016 campaign. i want to talk about politics, if you don't know what is in, it could be quite good for the american people, depends on what is in there. we don't know yet. but we started to see the real price that business in general has paid for this sort of attack dog business model of the chamber of commerce because you have now three major policy areas where the white house and chamber of commerce, the obama white house and the chamber of commerce have been very closely
-- you have the trade deal, the chamber is a major advocate of the trans-pacific trade deal, you have immigration reform, chamber of commerce wanted to bring in lower costs labor, and would have been immigration reform measures that would be very helpful in that regard and infrastructure may not know this, but the funds to pay for the nation's highway and mass transit is pretty much broke because gas taxes are not bringing in enough money to get going and the funding of the highway fund has to change. the chamber has been with the president on the right side of these issues on all of these things but because it helped in order to capture the republican majority of congress, and so
riling up this majority in such a partisan and toxic way. the chamber is hardly alone in this, shifting congress to a very very gridlock, hostile environment, but played a crucial role in this and guess what? a lot of members that helped elect and tea party candidates, hasn't yet challenge in the primaries, see if they do that this year, is this -- the chamber helped with the toxic environment and finding low and behold house majority is moving to the right, moving to the right will not always agree with that on everything. very interesting dynamic and we shall see how the fight for the
leadership after john boehner, so i think one reason to think that the trade deal is likely to pass here is threatened to run, has been big to help decide primary season which a lot of tea party candidates are running. if and when in the next coming weeks as congress is deciding whether to vote up or down on obama's trade deal the chamber can now go to these members who might not be inclined to vote against it and say you do that and we are going to run such a primary fight against you you never know what happens, you'll be out of office, good luck. that is why the chamber friend to spend in primaries, i do expect that they will use their
influence in this way to make sure the trade deal does indeed pass so this brings us to 2016. i want to open up for questions in a moment and simply say the stakes are really high, the chamber said it is going to spend $100 million, we will see if they do that. they often promise to can then spend much less, they like to throw their weight around. i do want to clarify the difference between super pacs which are regulated by the federal election commission, and most of their donors, this is how the supreme court said it should work in citizens united and what the chamber is doing and what copycats are now doing like the koch brothers organization which are saying we don't want to go that legal route, we want to resolve this
money secretly, we will tell the fcc what we are doing but won't tell you who our donors are. that is a different animal and very problematic threat we are looking at going into 2016, dark money when the chamber is open, will grow and grow. so with that, i would like to open things up for questions. [applause] >> please use the mic. >> i would like to call to your attention that john mccain, the senator, is married to a woman whose family owns anheuser-busch and he does everything possible to enhance the beer business. he votes for that. >> there are other ways to by congress.
>> they alone anheuser-busch. >> why->> they alone anheuser-b. >> why has the media been so quiet about it? why haven't they given it more publicity? how could it possibly pass a secret trade agreement? should in the american public know what is going on? >> a great question. the problem is we don> wh know what is in it. i speak as a member of the media. what we have seen, at leaked early drafts of the trade deal which had some problematic provisions and the obama administration on its end of the negotiations helped address, not entirely but will address those concerns, but in the media we have a tendency not to plan on things before we know the detail and maybe we are too reticent on
it and certainly we should be challenging that these things are negotiated in secret but when dealing in 12 years with so many parties to the agreement, negotiating, i don't know, i am not involved in international trade negotiations. i don't know if it is possible to do those out in the open but maybe i am being an apologist for the mainstream media but once we see the details of the agreement and what congress has asked us to pass your vote down, you we will be very loud in the media about it and should be and the american public needs to know every detail of what is in there. >> just a comment. i think the trade agreements are negotiated in secret, part of
how they are negotiated. and the current phase submitted to their individual countries. i am curious if your research talked about taft and the government looking towards business to get together and form their own trade organizations. this is in response going on at the time in a way to counterbalance, what did research showed up? >> great question. i don't know the answer to that. the narrative came out of the business oriented press and that is what they were talking about at the moment. you have industries that wanted things and taft was a judge, came to the supreme court but was a jaskge before that too an that was his temperament, to consult everyone, way everything
and make a decision. of originally, taft had proposed creating the chamber of commeiee within the u.s. department of commerce as a consulting group for the government and businesses didn't like that idea. they were very uncomfortable that they would not have autonomy and would be this kept little patch of the president and they said we don't want that and we will consider forming our own group. it was driven by having kids come to you, we want this or that, and to adjudicate their demand. >> thank you for your interesting presentation. what are the requirements for membership in the chamber of commerce? >> great question. there are a few different ways we can become a mentor. the chamber claims, i never mentioned 1500 groups giving
$5,000 or more. 3 million members, you might ask how the chamber says it has 3 million members, most members are members through local or state chambers of congress. they don> wh know it but when ty sign up for local chambers, the chamber's ioufiliated with the u.s. chamber, that local business is a member of the u.s. chamber of commerce so any business can pay in the international chamber and jews can be modest for small business and are based on what your revenue is. >> the reddick the -- >> you can make a sticker and put it on my slide. the gra5,ic eagle and circle, we put it in your window and you are a proud member. >> thank you for appearing tonight. at the state and local level, i
am on organizing committee member of the nui york taxi workers alliance and on the state and local will leveppe th big one today is uber and to say the media is not doing its job, a bunch of lies, deceptions and d is iension how much money tech the titans gave counsel people and the mayor, right? without mentioning how ming ithr has given, they spent $5 million. these ugly spier's against city councilman who voted for a cap but didn't believe the lives being hounded by -- and dunes. they are studying so ming ith m, and this has a detrimental
affect on the industry. and a bone with a private car without any inspection, any serial killer could go and pick up paper o >> that is one thing in new york city, all uber drivers after registering and going through -- to your point with outpap- it does relate to the book. there is an important distin, lobbp when you talk about the taxi industry's contribution to candiorketes, they are paying t get them elected and the understanding in politics, washington and nui york, the person you elective will remember what you did for them and how you got them ele, they will look after you in some way but i don't think there is
any dispute that bill deblasio, rodriguez and city council, reasonably supported -- uber is acting as a lohrop it hasn't made contributions yet. i don't to spend much time on this ppupnt but the thing aity, the chamber of commerce that is problematic is it is doing both. pinning of peace that a member of congress on the board and a member can't move. you are seeing political fights in nui york city contests happening much more on one threat on the ltodouging and th other in ele, i agree, daily news has written about lobbying and will contis hired away the chief policy
analyst for the commission, they ¥,you number one, worldwide, france burn their vehicles. what will happen? >> i hope we will not burn our vehicles here. >> you should give a on oeply b the executive dire, years ago -- >> you are lobbying of the editorial ity,ard? >> broyea and co.. and promoting a fare hike. and do your journalistic duty. >> i try every day. >> there is another mechanism
for influence and that is revolving door. and a lot of negotiators re,pically come from industry, and lobbyists for it. a you have to ask yourself, someone woin iing for the government for a few years and spent some time promoting a certain business interesvep wit their lying to the government or even if he is trying to con us, seems to be more prevalent today. >> i don't know if there is an account of how preseclent it is. the on oev prving d, alr problem is bigger today than it has been is accurate and because the money to be made in prisecte industry in an environment in regulatory
political environment that fyou washink aon lobbying is booming and people who work in government for a fui years hyou to wait a period of time, there are laws preventing them from lohrop there is nnch more money to be made now than there was two decades ago, four decades ag v it is a on oeal problem. we are going to see. >> the industry before. >> i think industry ispapne the are planting them as plants in the government? >> just promoting -- >> people in washington want to woin iing walls of power, they know they can work in government and gained a lot of capital and cash in on the private sector
and work for government. >> does it bbut ik a b p pritician in the democratic party? >> the chamber does that. you had more and more races and tea party republican candiorket in the general election and the tea party candidate is what the chamber wants, congress has shutdown export/import bank which helps support exporvep of mas american -- members of congress in california where the chamber -- he lost anyway. they do occasionally do that.
any more questions? >> you mention a fui secret parts to it, to learn about details. >> we donocc know what is in th deappe it was on oeleased by th white house. >> it seems the new normal for the white house is to have treaties that seem to have less total in the dark such as the latest treare,, the iran deal. nnltiple side deals the white house pushed forward, approved oug congreshu, we donocccongnow these detailv are so that is the new normal. >> i don't want to be at knee-jerk supporter of the president but i do think i think
highly of the president. i do thivent given the congresse is dealing with which has shown itself, you have a majority in ity,th houses that will just blk ¥, is i on anything he tries to absolutely anything just because ¥,e is who he is and in that environment, t attitude is i don't care what you have to do to get it done, we hyou some level in trust because congress is not going to have it so it is a popular on oeferenetn which i vote becau at congress will not have to vote on the trade deal in the dark. [ican - oible]
>> a on oeasocan -ble concern. >> what is the chamber of commerce doing in teonas of the spirit of ee,lling wars in the middle east, businesses are profiteering, seeing it as g, a because of money gpupng into it but is there a point that even the chamber of commerce is -- >> no, war is good for business. very g, ald for busineshu. in fbut it the chamber, never o, heard anti-war come of tom donahue's mouth or anyone from the chamber o many of them are major military contractors and suppliers and they need at war o
abs prutelor, anyone else? questions? >> the regulation, don't you think enforcement of those on os will triple the economy because some of the industries cannot irihfol f to modify the industr and california is devastated and the industry in california is foevastated and is gpupng to cst come up within 5 to ten years it will be completely devastated inetastry becblose of the regulations which to not reflect the businesses, we have the
jtods, the epa is against frbut iee,ng but against fracki one other option do they offer for creating g or,? and alvo when you tell something about solyndra and the $500 million that disappearet the compa b went baventrupt. >> one at a time. i don't have any great insight into s prthat isuca other than it ce aeedo o like spending by the federal government did not go according to plan and the project did not work ouee,l i don't have any explanation why. but on regulation, one tnsie awy d rom my ity,ok is yo ovhave a boy who cried wolf problem with the chamber of commerce becblos undoubte at overregulation has real cost for business that need to be adsucessed oug lime.makers who
more unhappy to go out and promise to voters even if it is that for busineshu. proch as gmakernor cuomo in ne york whose that we will stop fracking becblose my researcher -- because of that uncertainty in new york must ow n p wbut iee,n. did he overreached? possibly. and consequences for parvep of new york that on oeally need th business. so the problem is the chamber has orkema? d ivep credibilire, as an advocate against overreach of that kind because it has been out for higher for some industries that they need but it can be very -- democrats do not trust the chamber, we are the chambeof we know what is good for business, they automatically
suspe, bills and this is benlutiting somebody and harming someone else. that is the prtodlem. e tany trsecte organizations ou there open representing the coal industry, on opresresenting wha inetastry, tfrcking which tom donahue represented. at least you know where the meshuage is coming from and wha the interests, the chamber is in bad position to do that. >> this is my thoughee,l ce aee,l louis was found dead o principle that the u.s. is two or 4ect years, has become a gret country not becblose, not only because talking about a well, nnch richer, in the last
centurof fourteenth, fifteent sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, but the on oeason p crple from all maker the worl want to emigrate to the u.s. is because of the good culhas sre,t becblose of the money. you can go to other countries and make money like china right ness., you can mnsie mon ye so easily but p crple live there - right now i feel so much strong sent is ieness w the division b 4 and whicmid we should not hat money. we should not 8 rich people, we ce ahould hate what has not bee
right for the benefit of the american citizen. we hreace become the last e bw ewears, the first thing he did was made poor people hate rich p crplry, then that get on oid rich p crple in in the intellectual, theory of 40 years china -- kind of feel that way a ¥,ere. ce ao right ness. we shouldn't always politically correct, we shouee,l be morally coomiecee,l e ring the country bbut ik -- t fundamental one is immoral. if we focus on mon ye mon ye moe we can never get it righee,l we will be worse in the world.
in the u.s. and tnsie on uen r. worlturry, a bity,t ov want to beu.eve want to be -- the chinese, inert convenience but the country is so dighteided you can never s prve the problem anymore. >> we have one way, touches on ãfihat moral pletisis, shattere lrs ae grass, 350 million piece almost. with their infinity is. there is a conne, break down and capture of the
political process because people not e bel there at the p pritical system on opresresent them. and very few people vote, a major instihas stion which is s central to what i am writing about in this book, no site pretending the american public reallof so diri-in to ivep partisan battles over what they're pushing at that momenes stpresping bbut ik, never askedt that. and other institutions breaking down -- a b more autestions? >> i was wondering through your research what are some so ample
to you where it wasnocc money? it was more organizing the majority of p crple want to. e cham> certainly the whole mma for the slide was nixon signing of the clean air but iee,l thivent aity,ut the interplaof have on oalph nader doing his tg with the auto safety laws and enviroothentalists coming up, te anti-war movement fighting military-industrial complex, proch culhas sre of momentum oh a lar? scale that pushed things in the direction that they went in. ce ao i thivent a lot of this, would like to think it is a pendulum and the pendulum will swing agaiaj maybe it is not ahoulays bsect have it corrected, don't want it
to swing so far you donocc hream viable businesses and we are in poverty. that is not a good outcome either. e taybe i am on oomantizas, ng you're a because i was too young, not even alive tocongnow beyeaer but i do e bel that he encance aulates a sense of publ and individual stewardship, you had millions of p crple doinin consthrer and environmental groups, sierra club, signing leyeaers, writing letters to e tembers of congress, not that there is anything wrong with online ojoanand iing but p crpl have become so eotheshed in ther own consumer culture like the otherommuestion was talee,ng aity,ut, fojootten about organizing society so it is important to get that ow g agaiaj
e cham> i ashuure you, and many organizations are doing many good things. i do haveu.eveyolublost like the affordable care act, patients and families of people who have been ow ventfrpt or eed e y not having health care and for fact that their stories and public neegs preseciled becblos of the democratic majority in congress but also because at the end of the day that happened. ..
>> they can say no. >> they can say no, okay. but what if they wanted to work? they can't amend it. >> no. >> okay. >> at a certain point there has to be some level of trust invested in the president or not and, you know, that's what congress granted him, was that fast track authority. that's how it goes. [applause] >> thank you.
>> if you'd like to purchase a copy of my book, please, over there. i'll be signing them. get your very own signed copy of "the influence machine." thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> journalist ted koppel is next on booktv. in his book, "lights out," he reports that a cyber attack on one of the three grids that power america would be a major disaster, and he argues this is a threat for which the u.s. is unprepared. >> ted koppel, a 42-year veteran