IBJNews

Chambers of commerce take bigger role in politics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Chambers of commerce in Indiana are increasingly making politics their business.

After years of advocating pro-business positions, many chambers are taking the next step and issuing endorsements in hopes of ensuring business-friendly mayors get elected. The political action committee for the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce is backing that up with regular annual donations of $10,000 to mayoral candidates.

"I think you have to have the right people driving the bus, and chambers realize that for the sake of Indiana's economy and the business future you've got to have the right elected officials," said Shelli Williams, president of the Indiana Chamber Executives Association, which offers professional development for chamber executives and staff around the state.

The chambers in Evansville and Terre Haute issued their first mayoral endorsements during general elections four years ago, while the chamber in South Bend gave its first mayoral endorsement in the May primary. One Southern Indiana endorsed candidates for the first time last year in legislative races and in the 9th Congressional District.

Tonya Fischer, the chamber's vice president of investor and government relations, believes it will probably endorse mayoral candidates in November.

"The only way to make a difference is to step out there and endorse candidates and try to change public officeholders to where they are pro-business," she said.

Jeff Rea, president and chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce of St. Joseph County, said his organization decided that after years of advocating issues such as improving U.S. 31 and school reform, supporting positions wasn't enough.

"We feel like we need solid leadership to implement those key issues," the former Mishawaka mayor said. "So part of our public policy reach has jumped. Not because we want to be involved in politics, but because we do think we need good, solid people in leadership."

Some larger chambers, such as the Greater Indianapolis and Fort Wayne chambers, have been giving mayoral endorsements for more than 10 years. Other chambers are doing so now because members are telling them that is what they want, said Ben Taylor, executive director of the Great Lakes Region of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Taylor said the political involvement usually starts with chambers getting involved in issues and moves forward.

"The natural progression is holding elected officials accountable for how they vote," he said.

Some, though, still don't want to get involved.

"Our board just feels, keep above the fray," said Dave Ryan, executive director of the Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce, which serves Hammond, East Chicago and northwest Indiana. "You never know what's going to happen where, and it's better to be apolitical in those situations. That's the way we do it."

The chamber in Terre Haute endorsed a mayoral candidate for the first time four years ago, but president Rod Henry doesn't think it will do so again anytime soon. Henry said some members thought the chamber gained credibility by backing Democratic Mayor Kevin Burke, who lost by 110 votes But others in the close-knit community disagreed.

"Over the last several years we talked about it, and we just basically said let's stay away from that," he said. "We have focused ourselves more so since then on issues and public policy versus endorsements."

The larger a local chamber is, the more likely it is to be involved in advocating issues and endorsements, said Jeff Brantley, vice president of political affairs for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Smaller chambers tend to be more social and focused more on community relations, he said.

"Certainly there is more interest within the business community now of being more involved in politics and being supportive," Brantley said.

The state chamber has been endorsing candidates in legislative races since the 1980s, but it gave its first gubernatorial endorsement four years ago when it backed Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, Brantley said.

Brian Vargus, a professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, questions the value of the endorsements.

"Chamber endorsements are like newspaper endorsements. A lot of people don't even read it," he said. "There's no data to show they make a big difference."

He said a better way to make a difference is for chambers to support candidates by donations through their political action committees.

Many of the chambers said their endorsements didn't come with any cash donations. The Greater Indianapolis Chamber, though, has been backing its endorsements through its political action committee, the Business Advocacy Committee. The committee gave $10,000 four years ago to incumbent Democratic Mayor Bart Peterson, who lost, then gave $5,000 to the man who beat him, Mayor Greg Ballard, the next year. It gave Ballard $10,000 in 2009 and again in 2010.

The committee also gave Daniels $25,000 in 2007, including $5,000 earmarked for the Governor's Ball. He received another $10,000 in 2008.

The Fort Wayne chamber's PAC, the Greater Fort Wayne Business Political Action, gave $250 to Mayor Tom Henry's campaign in 2007 and gave an additional $1,500 to City Council candidates. Last year it donated $2,200 to legislative and school board candidates.

"It's the money," Vargus said. "That's where some things can really be done because they can coordinate giving a lot more through the chamber."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT