All across the country this week small business groups will be celebrating the one year anniversary of national healthcare reform—The Affordable Care Act (ACA)—signed into law on March 23, 2010. Click here for the small business ACA facts and click here for a free webinar—Your Bottom Line: What healthcare Reform Means for Your Small Business.
Today The South Carolina Small Business Chamber and the Small Business Majority are sponsoring a Roundtable at noon in Columbia on the issue. Guest speaker for the event at the Clarion Town House is Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Director of Coverage in the Office of Health Reform (OHR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The HHS OHR coordinates closely with the White House Office of Health Reform to provide leadership for and coordination of the development of the Administration’s policy agenda across executive departments and agencies concerning the provision of high quality, affordable and accessible health care and to slow the growth of health costs. Within OHR, Chiquita is responsible for policies regarding the new insurance options and Medicaid coverage created under the Affordable Care Act.
Ms. Brooks-LaSure will also be one of the speakers this evening’s BuySC Micro Conference at 6 p.m. This event will be at held at Coal Powered Filmworks, 1224 Huger Street, Columbia. For more information call Stephanie at 803-252-5733.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
EPA authority support
Yesterday The South Carolina Small Business Chamber signed on to the below statement. For more background on our postion on this issue, click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Amendments to SBIR-STTR Blocking EPA’s Authority: Political Maneuvers that Will Do Nothing for Small Businesses
Washington, DC - March 16, 2011 -- We, the undersigned organizations representing a diverse set
of business interests that range in size from fortune 500 companies to the small businesses that make up the backbone of this country, stand united in opposition to legislative attempts to undermine the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA). The bipartisan CAA has a long standing history of protecting public health and the environment since being signed into law in 1970 and most recently amended in 1990 with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the last two decades, emissions of the most common air pollutants have declined by 41%, while Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased by more than 64%. Unfortunately, two proposed amendments unrelated to S. 493, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technical Transfer (STTR) Reauthorization Act of 2011 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization), would block the EPA’s authority to enforce provisions of the CAA. Congress created SBIR in 1982 and STTR in 1992 to stimulate technological innovation and commercialize new products that led to the creation of jobs such as those in domestic manufacturing. The SBIR/STTR Reauthorization represents the first long-term reauthorization since 2000 and would provide certainty to these critical programs if enacted into law.
However, some in Congress want to jeopardize the reauthorization of these programs by playing politics with the environment and forcing a debate around EPA’s regulatory authority. Specifically, the following proposed amendments to the SBIR/STRR Reauthorization would roll back the EPA’s ability to protect public and workforce health from dangerous emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases (GHG):
American Businesses for Clean Energy
American Sustainable Business Council
Main Street Alliance
Small Business Majority
South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce
About the Groups
American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is an initiative to demonstrate large and small business support for EPA's clean air rules and Congressional enactment of clean energy and climate legislation.
http://www.americanbusinessesforcleanenergy.org/
The American Sustainable Business Council is a growing coalition of business networks and businesses committed to advancing a new vision, framework and policies that support a vibrant, equitable and sustainable economy. The Council brings together the business perspective, political will and strength to stimulate our economy, benefit our communities, and preserve our environment. Today, the organizations that have joined in this partnership represent over 65,000 businesses and social enterprises and more than 150,000 entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals and other individuals. http://www.asbcouncil.org/
The Main Street Alliance is a national network of state-based small business coalitions. The Alliance creates opportunities for small business owners to speak for ourselves, advancing public policies that are good for our businesses, our employees, and the communities we serve. http://www.mainstreetalliance.org/
Small Business Majority is a national nonprofit organization focused on solving the biggest problems facing America’s 28 million small businesses. We conduct extensive opinion and economic research and work with small business owners, policy experts and elected officials nationwide to bring nonpartisan small business voices to the public policy table. http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/
The South Caroline Small Business Chamber of Commerce is a statewide, 5,000+ member advocacy organization working to make state government more small business friendly. http://www.scsbc.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Amendments to SBIR-STTR Blocking EPA’s Authority: Political Maneuvers that Will Do Nothing for Small Businesses
Washington, DC - March 16, 2011 -- We, the undersigned organizations representing a diverse set
of business interests that range in size from fortune 500 companies to the small businesses that make up the backbone of this country, stand united in opposition to legislative attempts to undermine the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA). The bipartisan CAA has a long standing history of protecting public health and the environment since being signed into law in 1970 and most recently amended in 1990 with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the last two decades, emissions of the most common air pollutants have declined by 41%, while Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased by more than 64%. Unfortunately, two proposed amendments unrelated to S. 493, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technical Transfer (STTR) Reauthorization Act of 2011 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization), would block the EPA’s authority to enforce provisions of the CAA. Congress created SBIR in 1982 and STTR in 1992 to stimulate technological innovation and commercialize new products that led to the creation of jobs such as those in domestic manufacturing. The SBIR/STTR Reauthorization represents the first long-term reauthorization since 2000 and would provide certainty to these critical programs if enacted into law.
However, some in Congress want to jeopardize the reauthorization of these programs by playing politics with the environment and forcing a debate around EPA’s regulatory authority. Specifically, the following proposed amendments to the SBIR/STRR Reauthorization would roll back the EPA’s ability to protect public and workforce health from dangerous emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases (GHG):
The McConnell (R-KY) Amendment, would overrule public health experts and scientists by indefinitely taking away EPA’s ability to regulate these emissions from polluting industries. We urge legislators to OPPOSE this amendment.These amendments won't help small businesses and won’t create jobs. In fact, they'll leave small businesses – through factors such as higher employee health costs and productivity loss – to pay the price for dirtier air and will directly put jobs at risk. Over the past 40 years, the CAA has helped our economy create millions of new jobs and is one of the primary reasons for the dramatic growth of the U.S. environmental technologies industry and its workforce. Moreover, our research shows that the benefits of the CAA are wide reaching, and a diverse array of small businesses are eagerly looking to participate in a growing sustainable economy to boost their bottom lines. Given the negative impact on small business and environmental technology jobs that these amendments are bound to have, it is highly ironic that they would be attached to the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR — programs that have been a key component of small business success. We urge the Senate to reject these amendments should they come up for a vote, and, instead, get back to providing support for programs like the SBIR that affect small businesses the most. Passage of either of these amendments creates a slippery slope towards undoing or delaying other critical protections under the CAA.
The Rockefeller (D-WV) Amendment would also overrule public health experts and scientists by temporarily taking away EPA’s ability to regulate these emissions from polluting industries. Such a delay only creates further business uncertainty for forward looking businesses such as those we represent; therefore we urge legislators to OPPOSE this amendment.
American Businesses for Clean Energy
American Sustainable Business Council
Main Street Alliance
Small Business Majority
South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce
About the Groups
American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is an initiative to demonstrate large and small business support for EPA's clean air rules and Congressional enactment of clean energy and climate legislation.
http://www.americanbusinessesforcleanenergy.org/
The American Sustainable Business Council is a growing coalition of business networks and businesses committed to advancing a new vision, framework and policies that support a vibrant, equitable and sustainable economy. The Council brings together the business perspective, political will and strength to stimulate our economy, benefit our communities, and preserve our environment. Today, the organizations that have joined in this partnership represent over 65,000 businesses and social enterprises and more than 150,000 entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals and other individuals. http://www.asbcouncil.org/
The Main Street Alliance is a national network of state-based small business coalitions. The Alliance creates opportunities for small business owners to speak for ourselves, advancing public policies that are good for our businesses, our employees, and the communities we serve. http://www.mainstreetalliance.org/
Small Business Majority is a national nonprofit organization focused on solving the biggest problems facing America’s 28 million small businesses. We conduct extensive opinion and economic research and work with small business owners, policy experts and elected officials nationwide to bring nonpartisan small business voices to the public policy table. http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/
The South Caroline Small Business Chamber of Commerce is a statewide, 5,000+ member advocacy organization working to make state government more small business friendly. http://www.scsbc.org/
+(124x76).jpg)
|
Monday, March 14, 2011
Medicaid feeds economy
Today the South Carolina House of Representatives begins debating the 2011-12 state budget. One important issue will be how to address Medicaid funding—reduce state funding and thus lose up to hundreds of millions in federal dollars or adopt a plan by the hospitals for them to pay extra into the Medicaid program to avoid the loss of federal funds.
In the letter below The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce weighed in on the issue with House members.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 14, 2011
Dear Representative:
Earlier this month we asked that the Legislature take a more business approach to budgeting in regard to spending cap legislation. As you begin the budget debate this week, no better example of a decision requiring a business approach will be the issue of Medicaid funding.
Some have expressed concern that taxpayers must be protected from increased taxes. However, the bigger fear for the small business owner is less money circulating through our economy that creates consumers. Starving our local economies hundreds of millions of dollars will worsen the economy at the very time it appears to be improving. If small businesses need protection, it is from a state-inflicted loss of customers.
Our hospitals have made a good business proposal to keep federal Medicaid funds from being dramatically reduced to our state and thus reducing the financial impact to themselves. By increasing their contribution to the state’s Medicaid program, they can help keep federal funding to our state from being dramatically reduced.
The importance of this to our small businesses is twofold. First, while our large urban hospitals might be able to weather reduced Medicaid compensation with few layoffs, the same is not true for our rural hospitals. These will certainly need to scale back their personnel costs regardless of the wishful predictions of those with little or no business experience. There will definitely be a negative economic impact on our rural communities and their small businesses struggling to survive.
Second, fewer Medicaid dollars for any health care provider will mean increased cost shifting to those with insurance. The fact that all of us with health insurance are paying for the uncompensated care of others is a primary reason for rising health insurance costs. Intentionally increasing this upward pressure on premiums, at a time when small businesses are hard pressed to offer employees health insurance due to costs, runs counter to the Legislature’s positive efforts to make health insurance more affordable (ex. raising the cigarette tax).
We strongly encourage you to accept the Medicaid funding proposal by the hospitals. It is a good business decision for them and for our small businesses.
Sincerely,
Frank Knapp, Jr.
President & CEO
In the letter below The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce weighed in on the issue with House members.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 14, 2011
Dear Representative:
Earlier this month we asked that the Legislature take a more business approach to budgeting in regard to spending cap legislation. As you begin the budget debate this week, no better example of a decision requiring a business approach will be the issue of Medicaid funding.
Some have expressed concern that taxpayers must be protected from increased taxes. However, the bigger fear for the small business owner is less money circulating through our economy that creates consumers. Starving our local economies hundreds of millions of dollars will worsen the economy at the very time it appears to be improving. If small businesses need protection, it is from a state-inflicted loss of customers.
Our hospitals have made a good business proposal to keep federal Medicaid funds from being dramatically reduced to our state and thus reducing the financial impact to themselves. By increasing their contribution to the state’s Medicaid program, they can help keep federal funding to our state from being dramatically reduced.
The importance of this to our small businesses is twofold. First, while our large urban hospitals might be able to weather reduced Medicaid compensation with few layoffs, the same is not true for our rural hospitals. These will certainly need to scale back their personnel costs regardless of the wishful predictions of those with little or no business experience. There will definitely be a negative economic impact on our rural communities and their small businesses struggling to survive.
Second, fewer Medicaid dollars for any health care provider will mean increased cost shifting to those with insurance. The fact that all of us with health insurance are paying for the uncompensated care of others is a primary reason for rising health insurance costs. Intentionally increasing this upward pressure on premiums, at a time when small businesses are hard pressed to offer employees health insurance due to costs, runs counter to the Legislature’s positive efforts to make health insurance more affordable (ex. raising the cigarette tax).
We strongly encourage you to accept the Medicaid funding proposal by the hospitals. It is a good business decision for them and for our small businesses.
Sincerely,
Frank Knapp, Jr.
President & CEO
|
|
0
comments
Labels/Tags/Keywords:
cost shifting,
health insurance,
hospitals,
jobs,
Medicaid,
South Carolina House of Representatives,
South Carolina Small Business Chamber
|
Friday, March 11, 2011
Bi-partisan action on health care
This week I had the opportunity to talk with David Black, South Carolina’s new Director of the Department of Insurance. First impression—he’s very tall. Second impression—congenial, intelligent, and well informed on issues in spite of only being on the job for a few weeks. Did I mention his height?
Mr. Black made it clear that his agency was moving forward with the nearly $2.5 million in planning grants it has received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for implementing some of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I talked about these grants in my February 25th blog.
This is very good news and reflects Governor Haley’s recent comment that the ACA is the law of the land.
We found common ground on the health insurance exchange the ACA instructs to be in place by 2014. A healthy public discussion on how the state should establish a transparent market place for individuals and employees of small businesses to purchase health insurance is productive. Even if the ACA didn’t exist, a South Carolina health insurance exchange is a good idea.
This leads me to the biggest legislative health care news of the week. A House Ways and Means subcommittee yesterday voted unanimously (yes, that means a bi-partisan vote) to send a bill creating a health insurance exchange to the full Committee. The bill that will go before the full Committee probably next week is a slightly amended version sponsored by Republican Brian White. The original bill, filed on February 24, was sponsored by Democrats Harold Mitchell and Gilda Cobb-Hunter. Now 23 other Republicans and Democrats have signed onto the bill including Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Cooper (R-Anderson).
This fast action on a well designed bill in the House is significant because a health insurance exchange needs to be operating by the middle of 2013 so that it can meet the January 1, 2014 deadline set in the ACA. Important and controversial bills usually take 3 or more years to be enacted. We simply do not have that much time.
The House should be congratulated for its quick action. If it can move the bill to the Senate soon, the subcommittee hearing process in that body most likely will allow for that healthy public discussion of how the insurance exchange should operate for our state. Passage of a bill early next year (or possibly even this year) would put us on track to provide South Carolinians with an exchange that should increase competition in health insurance and help us make better informed decisions as to the coverage we want.
Mr. Black made it clear that his agency was moving forward with the nearly $2.5 million in planning grants it has received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for implementing some of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I talked about these grants in my February 25th blog.
This is very good news and reflects Governor Haley’s recent comment that the ACA is the law of the land.
We found common ground on the health insurance exchange the ACA instructs to be in place by 2014. A healthy public discussion on how the state should establish a transparent market place for individuals and employees of small businesses to purchase health insurance is productive. Even if the ACA didn’t exist, a South Carolina health insurance exchange is a good idea.
This leads me to the biggest legislative health care news of the week. A House Ways and Means subcommittee yesterday voted unanimously (yes, that means a bi-partisan vote) to send a bill creating a health insurance exchange to the full Committee. The bill that will go before the full Committee probably next week is a slightly amended version sponsored by Republican Brian White. The original bill, filed on February 24, was sponsored by Democrats Harold Mitchell and Gilda Cobb-Hunter. Now 23 other Republicans and Democrats have signed onto the bill including Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Cooper (R-Anderson).
This fast action on a well designed bill in the House is significant because a health insurance exchange needs to be operating by the middle of 2013 so that it can meet the January 1, 2014 deadline set in the ACA. Important and controversial bills usually take 3 or more years to be enacted. We simply do not have that much time.
The House should be congratulated for its quick action. If it can move the bill to the Senate soon, the subcommittee hearing process in that body most likely will allow for that healthy public discussion of how the insurance exchange should operate for our state. Passage of a bill early next year (or possibly even this year) would put us on track to provide South Carolinians with an exchange that should increase competition in health insurance and help us make better informed decisions as to the coverage we want.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Good news for business—well maybe or maybe not
There appears to be some good news for South Carolina businesses with workers’ compensation insurance. On good authority I have been told that the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI is the state’s workers’ comp rating organization) has filed for a 3.7% overall decrease in a key component of rates called the loss cost.
The loss cost is the actual difference between the premiums received and the cost to the insurance companies for claims and directly related expenses. A proposed decrease means that the carriers have collected too much in premiums just for those purposes. (Carriers get compensated for administration, taxes, profit, etc. through another component of premiums called the loss cost multiplier.)
But before business owners get all excited in possibly saving some money on their workers’ comp premiums, their insurance companies aren’t obligated to use the new numbers if approved by the S.C. Department of Insurance. They can just go on using their current rates.
That will change if a House Bill 3111 is passed. The bill, which I testified in support of last week at a House Labor, Commerce and Industry subcommittee, will require insurance carriers to use the latest approved loss costs approved by the state. This much needed legislation is sponsored by Representatives Tom Young and Bill Sandifer (chairman of the LCI Committee).
And there’s another problem. We should have no confidence that the proposed 3.7% decrease is enough. Maybe it should be a 5%, 7% or 10% decrease.
Why should we be suspicious?
NCCI is the same organization that had claimed that the insurance companies absolutely needed increases in loss costs of 32.9% in 2005 and 23.7% in 2007. The S.C. Consumer Advocate and The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce went to the Administrative Law Court to argue that these increases were not justified by the data. The Judge agreed and reduced the increases to 18.4% and 9.8% respectively.
So why aren’t the Consumer Advocate and SCSBCC reviewing the data supplied by NCCI in their rate filing to see if the business community deserves more of a decrease?
The current state law doesn’t require that NCCI’s filing be shared immediately with the Consumer Advocate and the public. As of late last week we had only heard of the proposed reduction through parties that were shown the reports. Obviously this needs to be changed.
Even more troubling is that the law only gives the Consumer Advocate the ability to ask for a public hearing before an Administrative Law Judge if the filing is for an increase.
Senator Glenn McConnell has filed legislation (S.32) to require a public hearing on any NCCI filing.
Until both H.3111 and S.32 are passed, the business community needs to be very wary of any “good news” from NCCI.
The loss cost is the actual difference between the premiums received and the cost to the insurance companies for claims and directly related expenses. A proposed decrease means that the carriers have collected too much in premiums just for those purposes. (Carriers get compensated for administration, taxes, profit, etc. through another component of premiums called the loss cost multiplier.)
But before business owners get all excited in possibly saving some money on their workers’ comp premiums, their insurance companies aren’t obligated to use the new numbers if approved by the S.C. Department of Insurance. They can just go on using their current rates.
That will change if a House Bill 3111 is passed. The bill, which I testified in support of last week at a House Labor, Commerce and Industry subcommittee, will require insurance carriers to use the latest approved loss costs approved by the state. This much needed legislation is sponsored by Representatives Tom Young and Bill Sandifer (chairman of the LCI Committee).
And there’s another problem. We should have no confidence that the proposed 3.7% decrease is enough. Maybe it should be a 5%, 7% or 10% decrease.
Why should we be suspicious?
NCCI is the same organization that had claimed that the insurance companies absolutely needed increases in loss costs of 32.9% in 2005 and 23.7% in 2007. The S.C. Consumer Advocate and The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce went to the Administrative Law Court to argue that these increases were not justified by the data. The Judge agreed and reduced the increases to 18.4% and 9.8% respectively.
So why aren’t the Consumer Advocate and SCSBCC reviewing the data supplied by NCCI in their rate filing to see if the business community deserves more of a decrease?
The current state law doesn’t require that NCCI’s filing be shared immediately with the Consumer Advocate and the public. As of late last week we had only heard of the proposed reduction through parties that were shown the reports. Obviously this needs to be changed.
Even more troubling is that the law only gives the Consumer Advocate the ability to ask for a public hearing before an Administrative Law Judge if the filing is for an increase.
Senator Glenn McConnell has filed legislation (S.32) to require a public hearing on any NCCI filing.
Until both H.3111 and S.32 are passed, the business community needs to be very wary of any “good news” from NCCI.
UPDATE: Shortly after this blog was posted, NCCI provided the Consumer Advocate with a copy of the filing in question.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Start running South Carolina like a business
Small businesses understand the need for any public or private organization to be fiscally prudent and minimize unnecessary expenditures. However, it would be rare for any successful business to artificially limit its spending to something other than monies available. To do so would prohibit the business from establishing long-range objectives for improving customer services or investing in technology needed to make a stronger company.
To the extent that the South Carolina General Assembly wants to see improvements in education, health, living standards, public safety, etc.; long-term objectives need to be established as those in the private sector would with a business plan.
But here’s the problem. The South Carolina House is getting ready to eliminate the flexibility of the state to obtain the resources to implement such a public-sector business plan, if they do craft one, by passing House Bill 3368.
In fact, a spending cap tied to the most recent lowest revenue point for an organization, as in H.3368, makes setting long-range objectives an irrelevant process. All resources will be consumed for supplying services for today with none available for investing in the future. Such a scenario would spell stagnation and eventual death for a business.
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce has delivered a letter to our House members strongly encourages the Legislature to do two things.
First, do not tie the hands of state government for future spending when the exact needs for tomorrow and the years after are not known. Second, begin a more business-like approach for budgeting that addresses the needs of today but also sets long-range objectives for improving the state with a course of action and necessary funding investments to achieve them.
It is popular to say that we must run South Carolina like a business. It is time to do exactly that. And we can start by not passing H.3368.
To the extent that the South Carolina General Assembly wants to see improvements in education, health, living standards, public safety, etc.; long-term objectives need to be established as those in the private sector would with a business plan.
But here’s the problem. The South Carolina House is getting ready to eliminate the flexibility of the state to obtain the resources to implement such a public-sector business plan, if they do craft one, by passing House Bill 3368.
In fact, a spending cap tied to the most recent lowest revenue point for an organization, as in H.3368, makes setting long-range objectives an irrelevant process. All resources will be consumed for supplying services for today with none available for investing in the future. Such a scenario would spell stagnation and eventual death for a business.
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce has delivered a letter to our House members strongly encourages the Legislature to do two things.
First, do not tie the hands of state government for future spending when the exact needs for tomorrow and the years after are not known. Second, begin a more business-like approach for budgeting that addresses the needs of today but also sets long-range objectives for improving the state with a course of action and necessary funding investments to achieve them.
It is popular to say that we must run South Carolina like a business. It is time to do exactly that. And we can start by not passing H.3368.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
SCSBCC calls for Justice Department investigation
One thing that we all should agree on regardless of our political differences is that the U.S. Supreme Court Justices should be above partisan politics and absolutely should have no conflict of interest on any rulings they make.
Below is a letter we are sending today to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today in regard to a very serious issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1, 2011
Eric Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder,
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce (SCSBCC) supports the January 19, 2011, request from Common Cause for an investigation into potential conflicts of interest of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in regard to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling. Should the Justice Department find that the Justices should have recused themselves from this case, we ask that you file a Rule 60(b) motion with the full Supreme Court seeking to vacate the judgment.
The SCSBCC is a 5000+ non-partisan advocacy organization representing the general interests of South Carolina’s small businesses. We were founded in 2000 with the principle that what is good for big business is not necessarily good for small business.
In this matter we are motivated to insure that the voices of small businesses are heard in the political and legislative process. The Citizens United ruling threatens our ability to do that because of our inability to compete in the area of political expenditures with major corporations. If the Citizens United ruling was improperly influenced by the same big corporate interests that benefited from the ruling, it is imperative for the good of our country’s small businesses and for the good of our Democracy and judicial system that the ruling be set aside.
Sincerely,
Frank Knapp, Jr.
President & CEO
Below is a letter we are sending today to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today in regard to a very serious issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1, 2011
Eric Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder,
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce (SCSBCC) supports the January 19, 2011, request from Common Cause for an investigation into potential conflicts of interest of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in regard to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling. Should the Justice Department find that the Justices should have recused themselves from this case, we ask that you file a Rule 60(b) motion with the full Supreme Court seeking to vacate the judgment.
The SCSBCC is a 5000+ non-partisan advocacy organization representing the general interests of South Carolina’s small businesses. We were founded in 2000 with the principle that what is good for big business is not necessarily good for small business.
In this matter we are motivated to insure that the voices of small businesses are heard in the political and legislative process. The Citizens United ruling threatens our ability to do that because of our inability to compete in the area of political expenditures with major corporations. If the Citizens United ruling was improperly influenced by the same big corporate interests that benefited from the ruling, it is imperative for the good of our country’s small businesses and for the good of our Democracy and judicial system that the ruling be set aside.
Sincerely,
Frank Knapp, Jr.
President & CEO
|
|
0
comments
Labels/Tags/Keywords:
Antonin Scalia,
citizens united,
Clarence Thomas,
Common Cause,
Eric Holder,
U.S. Justice Deparment
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)