“Daley’s appointment reaffirms President Obama’s war on fossil fuels. As head of JPMorgan’s corporate social responsibility department, Daley lead the charge to raise the price of fossil fuels by advocating a climate change policy that is hostile to carbon-based energy – coal, gasoline and natural gas,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

The goal of JPMorgan Chase’s climate change policy is “to advocate that the US government adopt a market-based national policy on greenhouse gas emissions, which includes all sources of emissions and is fair. Options include either a cap-and-trade or tax policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost.”

“In Daley’s twisted progressive mind, taxing energy in a fragile economy is good public policy. Daley’s global warming stance, however, is not surprising; after all he served as the chairman of Al Gore’s failed presidential campaign,” added Tom Borelli.
“Because of Daley’s support of energy taxes, I’m questioning the judgment of U.S. Chamber President Tom Donahue for hailing Obama’s appointment. As a veteran D.C insider, Donahue should be able to recognize a progressive wolf in banker’s clothing,” said Deneen Borelli, fellow with Project 21.

“Daley’s support of energy taxes should be a major cause of concern for the business community that Donahue is supposed to represent. Perhaps part of the Tea Party movement should be dispatched to watch Donahue to make sure the Chamber advocates for free enterprise and not shady inside-the-beltway deals,” added Deneen Borelli.

Daley also has ties to Exelon, the Chicago based utility that has taken a lead role in attacking coal-based electricity generation. He advised Exelon on its failed effort to buy Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. in 2004.

Exelon is a member of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP, a cap-and-trade lobbying organization and the company was a recipient of a $200 million grant from Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

The Wall Street Journal recently exposed the Obama-Exelon connection.

“Daley’s appointment shows President Obama really wants energy prices to skyrocket. The question remains why Donohue is joining that parade,” said Deneen Borelli.

Washington, D.C. – Companies supporting President Obama’s big-government policies risk suffering a dramatic drop in customer favorability, a newly-released nationwide research survey of conservative voters conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research and Freedom Works reveals.

In one example of the research findings, General Electric and Johnson & Johnson – companies that played key roles in advancing President Obama’s agenda, including cap-and-trade and health care – experienced plummeting favorability among conservatives after they were informed of the companies’ lobbying efforts. The drop in favorability was most severe with conservative voters active in the Tea Party movement.

Significantly, a substantial number of these consumers said this drop in favorability would influence their buying decisions.

Key findings about conservatives:

* Favorability of General Electric fell from 51% to 20%.

* Favorability of Johnson & Johnson plunged over a staggering 50 points – from 69% to 16%.

* Sixty percent of conservative voters said they are less likely to buy products from companies that have lobbied in favor of Obama’s legislative agenda.

Key findings about Tea Party activists:

* Only 28% of conservatives active in the Tea Party had an initial favorable opinion of GE, but this number dropped to 13% after these voters were informed of GE’s support of Obama’s policies.

* 60% of conservatives active in the Tea Party had a favorable opinion of Johnson & Johnson, but this number plunged to 8% after they were informed of Johnson & Johnson’s support of Obama’s policies.

* Eighty-one percent of conservative voters active in the Tea Party are less likely to buy products from companies that have actively lobbied in favor of Obama’s legislative agenda.

“The poll demonstrates that conservatives are willing to hold businesses accountable for public policy positions that conflict with their values of limited government. Not surprisingly, Tea Party activists held the strongest views and are most eager to punish companies that are partnering with President Obama to loot them of their liberty. Big businesses are now on notice that there is a measureable business risk for actively supporting the Obama, Reid and Pelosi progressive public policy agenda,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.

“For too long, big business elites have leveraged their special interest group politics to profit from the size and growth of government. The poll demonstrates that the days of easy money through backroom deals are over. Tea Party activists are willing to tackle progressive CEOs just as they tackled progressive politicians. Judging by the results of the mid-term elections, progressive CEOs should buckle up, because Tea Party activists are going to give them a very bumpy ride,” said Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks.

The poll’s release comes on the heels of the historic mid-term elections, in which the American people soundly rejected President Obama’s progressive agenda.

The survey of 801 self-identified conservative voters found President Obama’s polices, including cap-and-trade, ObamaCare and the $787 billion stimulus were extremely unpopular with these voters and that the negative views were extended to the companies that helped President Obama pursue them.

GE lobbied for Obama’s stimulus plan and then received tens of millions of dollars from the economic recovery funds, and the company was a huge backer of the president’s cap-and-trade policy. Johnson & Johnson promoted both ObamaCare and cap-and-trade.

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5%. It can be viewed at:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/teapartysurvey.pdf

Washington, D.C. – Today policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research are calling attention to corporate special interest groups receiving stimulus money that also are lobbying for Obama’s energy policy.

“It’s alarming that many of the remaining corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a cap-and-trade lobbying group – such as General Electric, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy, Exelon, and Honeywell all received economic stimulus funds. It seems pushing Obama’s agenda has financial rewards. The coordinated effort between big government and big business threatens our free enterprise system,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project .

General Electric seems to be a chief beneficiary of stimulus funds, with federal money being given to many of its businesses. As noted in a 2009 Wall Street Journal story, ‘General Electric Pursues Pot of Stimulus Gold,’ GE CEO Jeff Immelt geared up his lobbying army to exploit President Obama’s economic stimulus package.

“Immelt hit the jackpot with Obama’s stimulus funds. According to null, GE is the recipient of over $49 million in grants and contracts from a wide range of government departments including Energy, Defense, Justice, and Health and Human Services. Not only did GE get direct support, the company will likely benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars that went to GE’s utility customers – Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and Exelon. Looting public funds for profit appears to be a primary business strategy adopted by Immelt,” added Tom Borelli.

A renewable energy mandate is the latest energy policy being proposed in Congress. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sam Brownback (R-KS) recently introduced a renewable energy standard bill in the Senate that mandates 15 percent of electricity must be derived from energy sources such as wind and solar power by 2021.

“With cap-and-trade apparently dead in the Senate, Obama and his big business allies may push a renewable energy standard as a fallback position during the lame-duck session in Congress. The renewable electricity mandate would be an incremental step towards Obama’s energy goals,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored African-American leadership group Project 21.

“A renewable electricity requirement will benefit GE since it will force utilities to buy wind and solar power products that the company makes, but it will harm our economy. Electricity prices will increase, leading to a loss of manufacturing jobs,” added Deneen Borelli.

Big Business Played a Major Role In Passing ObamaCare and the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Legislation, says the Free Enterprise Project

Washington, D.C. – The Free Enterprise Project is charging President Obama with having a double standard on corporate money and influence.

“After using big business to advance his political agenda, suddenly President Obama is expressing concerns about corporate money in the political process. The fact is corporations played a crucial role in making ObamaCare law and getting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed in the House of Representatives,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s Free Enterprise Project.

During his radio address Saturday, President Obama expressed fear that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case would allow corporate special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections. The president warned that companies could “hide behind a phony name like ‘Citizens for a Better Future,’” since a business entity paying for TV advertising is not required to disclose its name. The president added that the business could be a foreign corporation: “You don’t know if it’s BP,” said Obama.

Borelli notes that President Obama was the sole spokesperson in a television advertisement touting the benefits of his health care plan — an advertisement sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, an organization funded by the drug industry and SEIU, the service employees’ union. In addition, Politico reported that PhRMA, the drug industry trade group, at one point planned to spend “as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan.”

“President Obama’s selective outrage about corporate influence is alarming. It’s ironic that the president himself appeared in a TV advertisement sponsored by what he now calls “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” added Borelli.

“The President’s reference to BP is also disturbing. While Obama is trying to frighten the public by depicting BP as a ‘foreign-controlled corporation,’ he failed to mention the company was an ally in lobbying for his cherished cap-and-trade legislation. BP was a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying group that was largely responsible for passing the Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives in 2009,” said Borelli.

Borelli notes that corporate interests such as General Electric have been a key ally of President Obama: “GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been a cheerleader for Obama’s political plan including the president’s green energy agenda. Immelt has partnered with Obama in seeking the so-called green energy economy and the company has aggressively lobbied for the president’s $ 787 billion stimulus plan. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the stimulus money was subsequently steered to GE’s customers. It’s disingenuous for the president to challenge corporate influence when he has actively partnered with big business when it served his political purposes,” added Borelli.

In a radio address last year, Obama cited the important role corporations were playing in pressing for cap-and-trade, saying, “Utility companies and corporate leaders are working with environmental advocates and labor leaders to find a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to fight climate change, and to create millions of new jobs in America.”

Borelli concludes, “Corporate special interests such as GE and the drug industry can be as much as a risk to liberty as progressive politicians. This is especially true when the agenda of big business aligns with progressive elected officials and labor unions. This is why Tea Party activists need to challenge politicians and business leaders.”

Activists Urged to Sign Petition Calling for GE CEO Immelt to Resign

Washington, D.C. – Calling General Electric an “opportunistic parasite feeding on the expansion of government,” activists with the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research are calling on the public to sign a petition calling on GE CEO Jeff Immelt to resign.

The petition can found at http://www.bigbusinesswatch.org.

On Tuesday, the House Defense Appropriations Committee in an 11-5 vote approved $450 million earmark for a backup engine designed by General Electric and Rolls-Royce for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The jet engine funding was part of the $681.8 billion spending bill approved by the committee.

President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed the funding of the secondary engine over budget concerns – Gates believes funding a backup engine is a waste of money. The Pentagon chose an engine made by Pratt & Whitney to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“GE’s success in getting the House panel to vote for its jet engine illustrates its dominance over the legislative process. Under GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s leadership, GE has become an opportunistic parasite feeding on the expansion of government,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.

In addition to its lobbying success with the jet engine, GE pushed for President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan and the company is working hard to pass cap-and-trade legislation and a renewable energy standard in the Senate. GE stands to benefit from government subsidies for its wind turbines and solar energy products and from its utility customers that received smart-grid grants.

“Recent news stories about the demise of cap-and-trade legislation may be greatly exaggerated. President Obama recently expressed an interest in pursuing climate change legislation and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the House cap-and-trade provisions could be merged with a Senate energy bill during a conference committee,” said Borelli.

“GE lobbyists will be swarming over the last minute push for cap-and-trade. Immelt’s business strategy to profit from an expansion of government is in direct conflict with liberty-loving Tea Party activists who want to rein in spending and stop cap-and-trade. GE’s actions demonstrate that advocates for limited government and fiscal responsibility can’t ignore the risk posed by CEOs such as Immelt,” added Borelli.

Stopping cap-and-trade remains a high priority for Tea Party members. It’s at the top of the list in the Contract From America, a policy agenda for Congress put together by Tea Party activists nationwide.

“To address the threat to limited government brought about by GE we have a petition that calls for Immelt to resign. It’s time that ‘We the People’ send a strong message that citizen patriots will tackle CEOs as well as big spending elected officials,” said Borelli.

The petition can found at http://www.bigbusinesswatch.org.

Call for Voluntary Return of Gifts Spurred by Reports that BP Could Go Bankrupt

Washington, D.C. – In light of recent reports that BP may go bankrupt paying claims for damages and cleanup of the Gulf oil spill, The National Center for Public Policy Research today called on organizations and individuals that have received contributions from BP or its affiliated foundation in recent years to return these donations, or to contribute them to a reputable, independent Gulf cleanup fund.

“It is now well-established that when politicians and others find themselves in receipt of donations of dubious or inappropriate origin, they return those donations,” said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Donations were returned to Goldman Sachs after that firm was charged with civil fraud. Numerous Florida politicians returned donations from a law firm charged with operating a Ponzi scheme. President Obama returned donations from his aunt, an illegal alien, and from a man charged with murder before the latter’s conviction, and very many donations were returned to Enron, among others.”

“The argument for returning the money in this situation is even more compelling than most, in light of the fact that the full cleanup effort may not occur if BP goes bankrupt. Nobody thought that Goldman Sachs was going to go belly up. Returning BP’s money to assist cleanup efforts and help those harmed by the leak would respect both the moral imperative and the environmental imperative,” added David Ridenour.

According to published reports, major environmental advocacy organizations in receipt of major gifts from BP in recent years include the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council and others. Very many politicians from both political parties also have received contributions.

“It is not appropriate to on the one hand to criticize BP for taking what appear to have been shortcuts with safety and environmental needs while at the same time profiting from BP’s business model,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “And it’s not as if returning the BP grants would cause these institutions to close their doors. The Nature Conservancy reported nearly $1.4 billion in revenue in 07-08, against about $900 million in expenses, with net assets of nearly $5 billion. The World Wildlife Fund raised $10 million more in FYE 2008 than it spent, and had nearly $300 million in net assets. The World Resources Institute had over $50 million in net assets.”

“These environmental organizations are to the non-profit community what the Fortune 100 is to the business community,” Amy Ridenour continued. “Even the least known of these groups, the Wildlife Habitat Council, reported revenue of $2.9 million for FYE 2009, with the publicly-reported BP monies they received totaling far less than their net assets.”

Washington, D.C. – Today the Free Enterprise Project released an online petition calling for Jeff Immelt to resign as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Electric.

The petition can found at http://www.bigbusinesswatch.org.

“In a desperate attempt to find revenue, Immelt is seeking to profit from President Obama’s big government agenda,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s Free Enterprise Project. “Immelt successfully lobbied for Obama’s failed $787 billion economic stimulus plan and now he is actively lobbying for the president’s cap-and-trade policy. Immelt’s actions are responsible for putting our nation in deeper debt and looting future generations of their economic liberty.”

“Immelt has positioned GE to depend on government spending and public policy initiatives such as cap-and-trade to boost the company’s revenue. For instance, Obama’s cap-and-trade policy would mandate the purchase of renewable energy products such as wind turbines which GE manufactures,” added Borelli.

“Our tax dollars are being laundered to bailout GE via Obama’s big government policies. Under the Obama – Immelt partnership, our progressive president significantly increases the role of government in our lives, Immelt gets much needed revenue and Americans pay for it all in terms of higher taxes, higher national debt and suffer from reduced liberty,” said Tom Borelli.

“When you think of it, Immelt poses more risk to liberty than a progressive Senator. Immelt’s ability to affect public policy has no checks and balances and he is using the vast resources of GE to promote Obama’s agenda. It’s time ‘we the people’ hold Immelt accountable for undermining America’s economic sustainability and our free enterprise system,” added Tom Borelli.

GE’s NBC Universal media empire, especially MSNBC, frequently supports Obama’s policy agenda and its news coverage of patriotic Americans participating in the Tea Party movement has been particularly harsh.

“Immelt has transformed MSNBC from a news network to Obama’s personal public relations agency. It’s outrageous that Immelt allows Keith Olbermann and other talking heads to tarnish the image of liberty loving Tea Party activists as racists. “‘We the people’ have had enough of Obama’s government gone wild spending programs and CEOs such as Immelt that are seeking to profit from taxpayers,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the National Center’s Project 21.

“The time has come for Tea Party activists to recognize the threat to liberty posed by CEOs such as Immelt. If GE’s board of directors will not address Immelt’s failed leadership, Tea Party members and other political activists must,” added Deneen Borelli.

It angers me to no end when I hear friends and relatives sitting around bemoaning someone’s wealth. I don’t get it. Is this because of jealousy, resentment, disrespect or what? And of course in these flip conversations comes out the profound that anyone who made money did so by screwing their friends and neighbors. We know this is not true. (Exceptions to everything, so give it a rest.)

Why can’t people be honest? Have you ever sat down and seriously considered how much you and I have benefited from other people’s wealth? We all have and I’m willing to bet some people don’t even realize it.

To seriously give voice that we should limit the money anyone can make might even sound intriguing to some but unless you spend some time thinking about how this would negatively affect us all, you will never fully appreciate the actual benefits we all share.

Thomas Sowell writes, “The moral bankruptcy of the notion that third parties can decide when somebody else has “enough” money is matched by its economic illiteracy.”

Think of the everyday benefits we all share from other people’s wealth. Has anyone you’ve known ever received a scholarship made possible through an endowment? How about a walk in a park made possible by the wealth of someone buying and donating that park? There’s always a chance to spend an afternoon on the town common, listening to a band played on the gazebo that was made possible through generous donations of others’ wealth. Probably instruments in the band came from donations.

Most of us own cell phones and computers. What has happened to the price of those over the years? And why has the price fallen? Those companies we like to dump on made money and as such had money to devise ways of manufacturing products and getting them into our hands in a less expensive way, forcing the prices down. Have we not all benefited from this kind of wealth before?

Or how about something as simple as your job?

The next time you get ready to open your mouth to put down somebody and the money they have made, ask yourself just what your life would be like without it. And then ask yourself what it would be like around here if Obama got his way and began telling you and I and all the great philanthropists of this nation, how much money is enough.

Go out and enjoy that museum of fine art this weekend!

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, DC: Policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research are attending the annual shareholder meetings of Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Thursday to question their CEOs about their active support of President Obama’s progressive agenda.

“The pharmaceutical industry was a key driving force that helped push ObamaCare over the legislative line. Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler played a crucial role in generating public and political support for ObamaCare,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

“By working with President Obama, the Democratic majority in Congress, and left-wing advocacy groups, corporations such as Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer are undermining the liberty of all Americans,” added Borelli.

Kindler pushed for a $150 million industry ad campaign to promote ObamaCare with liberal activist groups and co-authored a commentary with Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, on the left-wing blog The Huffington Post.

“Since most Americans opposed ObamaCare, by supporting ObamaCare aggressively, Kindler risked the reputation of the company,” said Justin Danhof, director of legal programs for the National Center. “Furthermore, as our British friends know, government control over health care budgets inevitably leads to limits on the purchase of prescription drugs. Pfizer’s support for ObamaCare is not just bad for the company, but potentially could, over time, prove fatal to some Americans.”

Johnson & Johnson is also promoting Obama’s liberal policy agenda. In addition to being a member of the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which aggressively supported ObamaCare, Johnson & Johnson is also lobbying for Obama’s cap-and-trade energy policy as a member of the United States Climate Action Partnership, a lobbying coalition comprised of corporations and environmental special interest groups.

“Shareholders must be concerned about a potential consumer backlash against Johnson & Johnson because of the company’s support of Obama’s progressive agenda. ObamaCare was opposed by a majority of Americans and the cost of cap-and-trade will lead to higher energy prices and higher unemployment. Johnson & Johnson CEO William C. Weldon should be wary that the political activism exhibited by the Tea Party movement could be unleashed against the company’s products,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership program.

Danhof is representing National Center for Public Policy Research, which owns Pfizer stock, at the Pfizer annual meeting in Cleveland, Ohio. Deneen and Tom Borelli will be representing the National Center for Public Policy Research, which owns Johnson & Johnson stock, at its annual meeting in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Shareholders Urged to Challenge CEO Bob Iger at Disney’s Annual Meeting

Washington, D.C.: On occasion of the Disney annual shareholder meeting today, the Free Enterprise Project is warning Disney shareholders that CEO Robert Iger’s progressive political bias puts investors at risk.

The Free Enterprise Project is a program of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Disney shareholder.

“Iger’s rejection of several offers to sell the distribution rights of the ABC-TV docudrama The Path to 9/11 is a sign that his personal political views are affecting business decisions,” said Free Enterprise Project director Dr. Tom Borelli, who has raised the issue personally with Iger at past shareholder meetings. “In addition, Disney’s close ties to progressive Democrats, including President Obama, may have resulted in ABC News’ special access to cover the president’s health care policy in a day-long media blitz last year.”

“Iger’s policy decisions are putting Disney in the cross-hairs of millions of Americans who are rejecting the progressive assault on liberty. By rebuffing offers to sell the distribution rights of The Path to 9/11, Iger is simultaneously silencing speech while denying shareholders an opportunity to profit from the company’s investment,” Borelli added. “Playing progressive politics is a dangerous game for a company such as Disney that relies on a squeaky clean brand for its revenue.”

The political motivation behind Iger’s decision to bury the docudrama remains a topic of discussion years after its broadcast. Some assert that Iger’s motivation to not let the award winning miniseries see the light of day is driven by his desire to protect the legacy of President Clinton regarding terrorism.

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood recently reported on the issues surrounding Iger’s controversial verdict.

Last June, ABC News was given special access to the White House to cover President Obama’s health care initiative. ABC’s “Good Morning America” was broadcasted from the White House lawn, “World News,” its nightly news show from the Blue Room, and a special prime time “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” from the East Room.

“A monopoly given to ABC for news coverage raises serious concerns of media independence. The perception that the White House is choosing ABC over other news organizations because of favorable coverage has the potential to damage the credibility of Disney’s news division,” said Borelli.

The proximity between Iger and his team with progressives only adds concerns about media independence. Not only is Iger a generous supporter of progressive politicians (about ninety percent of his donations go to Democrats and liberal PACs), but Disney board member Monica C. Lozano, CEO of La Opinion, a major Spanish-language newspaper in the U.S., is a member of Obama’s economic recovery board.

“The close alliance between Disney and the Obama Administration can be a risk to shareholders. What happens to Disney if Tea Party members and other liberty-minded activists turn on the company because of concerns that Iger is using the company to advance the goals of the progressive movement?,” asks Borelli.

“‘I’m not going to Disney World’ could become the battle cry for American patriots.”

Given these risks, shareholders attending Disney’s annual meeting should ask Iger:

With millions of Americans outraged over the progressive attack on liberty, are you concerned your refusal to sell “The Path to 9/11,” and your personal support of the progressive agenda will cause a conservative backlash against Disney’s brands?

The shareholder meeting is on March 10, 2010 at the JW Marriott San Antonio Hill Country, San Antonio, Texas.