Investors and issuers alike should take note of the Supreme Court's opinion in Morrison v. National Australian Bank as it could have major implications for their ability to sue or be sued for securities fraud in the future. 

In a ground breaking decision decided yesterday the High Court in Morrison rejected years of federal jurisprudence on the extraterritorial application of US securities fraud legislation. In a scathing opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court criticized the Second Circuit's vaunted "conduct" and "effects" test for establishing subject matter jurisdiction over foreign investors trading foreign securities on foreign exchanges (the so called "foreign cubed" case). The Court found that the authority to hear a securities fraud case involving foreign investors and securities is a question of "merit" and not a question of subject matter jurisdiction. In other words, rather than diving into the particulars of the defendant's conduct or the nationality of the parties, the Court found that the question is whether Section 10(b) gives rise to a private cause of action for securities that are traded outside of the territory of the United States.

In opposition to the Second Circuit's test involving foreign securities traded on foreign exchanges, the Court promulgated the "transactional test" for determining the extraterritorial reach of US securities fraud laws. The Court held that "[T]hose purchase-and-sale transactions are the objects of the statue's solicitude...And it is in our view only transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities, to which Section 10(b) applies."

RiskMetrics Group today announced its sixth annual Global ESG 100. The Global ESG 100 companies are selected from a pool of 2,000 firms in more than 50 countries for their effective management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities.

This year's list welcomed 35 companies, 20 of which have never been listed, including Sharp Corporation, which has strengthened its environmental performance and ramped up solar cell production. Other newcomers included Safeway Inc., Discovery Communications Inc., Abertis Infraestructuras, Danske Bank A/S, and Osaka Gas Company.

Tuesday night, Louis Auchincloss died at 92. Widely lauded as a chronicler of the WASP aristocracy, I think he is much better categorized as a novelist of ethics.

As someone who grew up in a family of lawyers, Auchincloss's stories of the dilemmas of a private lawyer resonated. I well remember the evening I stumbled on Tales of Manhattan (1967). I read it in one sitting. The Injustice Collectors (1950) followed a few days later.

Last week, I asked the Social Investment Forum listserv to recommend organizations who are working to help the people of Haiti. I was heartened by the response. Links to donate to these groups are listed below.

I also spoke with RiskMetrics analyst Yasmine Lonon, who helped research a study of developing-nation disaster risk for the World Bank's Disaster Management Facility. In response to a question from our colleague Jane Meacham, who noted that there's almost no private insurance in Haiti, Yasmine explained how a lack of insurance hinders disaster preparedness:

An interesting coalition of groups joined together for a side event at the Copenhagen climate change summit on Dec. 12. Gathered were the Worldwatch Institute, a respected think tank represented by its leader, Christopher Flavin; the United Nations Foundation, established by Ted Turner, and represented by its head, Tim Wirth, a former Senator and the main US negotiator for the Kyoto Climate Conference during the Clinton administration; and the American Clean Skies Foundation, which promotes natural gas as a clean alternative to coal, represented by its CEO, Gregory Staple.

Their three-hour conference was about a low-carbon energy source that could reduce US dependency on both imported oil and domestic coal: shale gas.

One of the lead speakers was Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, a large natural gas producer. He stated that he was in Copenhagen to drive home the point that shale gas production was a game changer in "de-carbonizing" the US economy.

Mr. McClendon explained the potential of shale gas:

• New technologies, such as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and horizontal drilling, have made it feasible to extract vast "new" reserves of gas from underground formations of shale;
• Natural gas emits about 25 percent less CO2 than oil and 50 percent less than coal;
• Installed natural gas electricity capacity is already in place, and could meet current U.S. energy demands (unlike nuclear, wind, solar, or "clean" coal plants equipped with carbon capture and storage, or CCS);
• The steady output of gas plants can help balance the irregularity of solar and wind power; and
• Unconventional US gas would reduce the nation's dependency on foreign (OPEC) hydrocarbons.

While this message has been delivered consistently to investors by many of the US's independent gas players, the industry could do more to make its case to Congress and the public. The coal, electric utility, and railroad industries have employed top lobbyists to represent their interests, but the natural gas industry has been much less involved in the drafting of US climate change regulations.

Natural Gas Share of US Energy Use to Grow

Still, in its assessment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as ACES, and the Waxman-Markey bill), the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected that the share of natural gas in US electricity production could increase to 31 percent by 2020 from a 2007 level of 21 percent. EIA further projects a 39-percent contribution to the electricity supply from natural gas by 2030. This would lift the share of natural gas in the overall US energy supply to 26 percent in 2020, up 3 percentage points from 23 percent in 2007, and to 28 percent by 2030.

These projections, however, assume that the US will be unable to take advantage of overseas offsets for its domestic carbon output. EIA also assumes limited deployment of other low-carbon technologies, such as CCS and new nuclear plants.

Gas Industry Seeks Higher Profile

The US natural gas industry believes that ACES should have included greater explicit support for gas in the draft carbon regulation, and also taken a less lenient approach to coal, particularly in the allocation of emissions allowances. The gas industry's presence in Copenhagen is an attempt to raise its public-policy profile, as is the decision by 28 of the largest natural gas independents to form the "American Natural Gas Alliance," which is charged with promoting the benefits of natural gas to the public.

Big Oil Moving into Gas in a Big Way

In a sign of great expectations for the gas market, ExxonMobil recently announced a $41 billion, all-stock acquisition of XTO Energy, an offer price that represents a 25 percent premium above XTO's Dec. 11 closing share price. XTO has the largest proved natural gas reserves among the US independents, and Exxon's commitment to natural gas production in the U.S. not only will offset some of the carbon risks inherent in Exxon's portfolio, but it will also bolster the industry's ability to lobby Congress as it takes up climate change legislation in 2010.

The Impact of "Fracking"

While natural gas is set to play a more significant role in the US energy mix, increased domestic production will carry environmental costs. The industry will need to spend as much political capital on addressing these concerns as it will on improving the position of natural gas in carbon legislation. High on the list of these concerns are the environmental impacts of "fracking."

The Sustainable Investment Research Analyst Network (SIRAN) recently conducted a seminar on the implications of expanded fracking operations. In a follow-up to this article, Alan Petrillo will explore SIRAN's perspective on how the fracturing of shale formations could affect the environment, including the nation's water supply. The process of extracting the fossil fuel with the least impact on the atmosphere could have a big impact on the American landscape.

The climate change scientists whose emails were recently hacked are living their worst nightmare. Like many of their colleagues, these scientists had long been frustrated by a handful of vocal global warming skeptics. The hacked emails gave skeptics a new opening to sow doubts about global warming, just as media attention turned to the Copenhagen climate summit.

These scientists spoke in some private emails of resisting Freedom of Information Act requests and boycotting journals that provide an ongoing platform for the skeptics' views. Neither the hacking nor the censorship should be condoned. But when this dust-up settles, these things will be certain:

• The evidence of human contributions to global warming is so overwhelming that this media sideshow will have no impact on the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting.
• The real issue to be addressed at Copenhagen is how to pay for the ballooning costs of climate change. These costs now include not only trillions of dollars of investments in carbon mitigation, but also spending on adaptation measures, to address warming that will continue throughout our lifetimes. By some estimates, these adaptation costs will rise above $100 billion a year.

The Impact of Dumping "Coal Mines into the Air"

Global warming is a scientific fact. The debate now is at the margins of just how fast and dangerous the warming will be.

Svante Arrhenius won a Nobel Prize in 1896 for his theory that "evaporating our coal mines into the air" would eventually double the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and raise the Earth's temperature by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. That's still the basic forecast today, except what Arrhenius thought would take a thousand years could well happen in this century.

The World Meteorological Organization has reported that the first decade of the 21st century will be the warmest since modern temperature records began in 1861. The Earth's temperature has risen nearly 1.5 degrees F since then, with another 1 degree F of warming expected within the next 30 years as the warming trend accelerates. By 2100, the Earth could be as much as 8 degrees warmer - a level not seen since the Age of the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

While skeptics point out that the global temperature has not exceeded the peak set in 1998, this does not change the fact that the Earth has caught a fever and so far has done nothing to stop it. In fact, all of the years since 1998 rank among the warmest on record; 2009 is expected to go down as the fifth warmest year.

If one wants other physical evidence of this warming, look no further than the North Pole, where the Arctic Ice Cap–a permanent fixture of the Earth over the last 3 million years–is melting so fast that it could disappear entirely during summer months within the next five to 10 years.

Official Scientific and Governmental Consensus

Since 2000, many of the world's most reputable scientific organizations have issued reports or statements supporting the human link to global warming, and the dangers it poses:

• In 2001, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a report at the request of the Bush administration that concluded rising global temperatures in recent decades were "likely mostly due to human activities" (and issued a much more strongly worded report in 2009).
• In 2003, the American Geophysical Union concurred, saying, "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in near-surface temperatures observed in the second half of the 20th century."
• In 2004, the American Meteorological Society issued its own warning, describing human-influenced climate change as "a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled."
• In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its fourth assessment since 1990 on the state of climate change science. It concluded that there is greater than 90 percent certainty that most of the warming over the past 50 years has been caused by human activities, and that 3.4 degrees F to 8.3 degrees F of warming is likely with a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
• In March 2009, the IPCC provided a disturbing update to its forecast, warning that "[r]ecent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections." Simply put, "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized."
• And on Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a final ruling that greenhouse gases are endangering the environment and human health, triggering the need for regulatory controls. This finding, too, was driven by the weight of scientific evidence that human activity is largely responsible for the warming taking place.

"We know that skeptics have and will continue to try to sow doubts about the science," remarked EPA administrator Lisa Jackson at the announcement. "It's no wonder that many people are confused. But raising doubts – even in the face of overwhelming evidence – is a tactic that has been used by defenders of the status quo for years."

Academic Consensus

That is why responsible climate scientists find it so frustrating that public doubts persist, even though the basic premise that human activity is contributing to climate change has not been seriously contested for years or even decades:

• One literature review of 928 peer-reviewed articles published in the 1990s and through 2002 found that 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that human activity is contributing to global warming. The remaining 25 percent of these studies dealt with other facets of the climatological issue, stating no position on this key question, according to the review by the Program in Science Studies at the University of California.
• In another recent survey of more than 3,000 Earth scientists, 82 percent agreed that human activity is a "significant contributing factor" in changing global temperatures. Specialists in the field who actively publish on the issue were in almost total agreement: 75 of these 77 climate scientists–about 97 percent–agreed with the statement.

Fundamentally, responding to climate change is sound risk management. While the chance of our house burning down is highly remote, we still take the precaution of buying fire insurance. Why then would we not take out insurance when there is a greater than 90 percent chance that our world is catching fire?

That is what the Copenhagen summit is really about. The longer we postpone real action to bring down greenhouse gas emissions to address global warming, the higher our premium costs will go.

...

For another review of skeptics' claims and scientists' rebuttals, see this December 7th Wall Street Journal article: "What global warming? A look at the arguments the skeptics make–and how believers respond"

...

Doug Cogan is Director of Climate Risk Management for RiskMetrics Group. His 1992 book, The Greenhouse Gambit, was one of the first to address the business and investment implications of climate change. He has since written many other reports and articles on climate and energy topics and helped develop a Climate Change Governance Framework to analyze corporate and fund manager responses to this issue.

Last month, "The Economics and Politics of Corporate Social Performance" won the 2009 Moskowitz Prize. The Haas School of Business at UC-Berkeley and the Social Investment Forum (SIF) award the annual Prize to research relevant to socially responsible investing (SRI).

Prize-winning Stanford Professor David P. Baron and his team found that the "social pressure market," through its interplay with the markets for products and equities, can reward companies for their corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. In doing so, Baron confronts a canard that the SRI sector has disputed since its inception: "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits."

Most Executives Sleeping With the Enemy

SRI and CSR skeptics have perennially repeated this assertion, which is the title of a 1970 New York Times op-ed by Milton Friedman. In that piece, Friedman wrote that an executive, as "an employee of the owners of the business," must run a company in its shareholders' interest. He defined this interest in entirely financial terms, and called any belief to the contrary a "fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society."

Such "subversion" was rampant in 1970, and as Prof. Baron details, it's even more so today. In his paper's introduction, he cites a 2008 Economist poll that found a majority of firms believe CSR "is a necessary part of doing business," while under 4 percent called it "a waste of time and money." This commitment is not cheap:

"The amount business spends on CSP ['corporate social performance'] dwarfs the amount it spends on campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures. Milyo, Primo, and Groseclose (2000) estimated that corporate campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures were $300 million and $3 billion, respectively, whereas charitable contributions alone were $35 billion."

Why do executives give away so much of their shareholders' money? Do such expenditures help corporate profitability? Prof. Baron reviews past research into the impact of CSR efforts on financial performance, and finds a "positive but weak correlation" between good CSP and corporate financial performance (CFP).

If responsible behavior doesn't always lead to increased profits, then why do most executives believe it's necessary? To answer this, Prof. Baron and his team propose "a theory of the underlying economics and politics of CSP."

A Summary of the CSP Theory

Prof. Baron explains:

"The theory and empirical analysis view CFP and CSP as jointly determined by firms operating in three markets: a product market, a capital market, and a market for social pressure as generated by government, NGOs, and social activists. The theory provides the empirical specification and is also used as a framework to interpret the estimates as an equilibrium in the three markets."

Customers form the product market, and the capital market consists of investors. Prof. Baron on the third market:

"Social pressure could come from government in the form of regulation and enforcement or from NGOs and social activists in the form of boycotts, media campaigns, and harm to a firm's reputation or brand equity. … "To investigate the relations among CFP, CSP, and social performance in more detail, social pressure is disaggregated into a component judged to be due to public politics (government) and a component due to private politics (NGOs and social activists)."

What the Theory Means for SRI

Two of the study's core findings are especially relevant to SRI, which can be defined as investment that considers extra-financial metrics of corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.

" …[The] paper finds support for three hypotheses–consumers, employees, or investors penalize firms for incurring social pressure, social activists and NGOs choose soft targets to which to direct social pressure, and CSP is responsive to social pressure. … "[Also,] disaggregating CSP and social pressure shows that the relations among CFP, CSP, and social pressure are due to social pressure from private rather than public politics."

Here is a clarification of this private political process:

1) A corporation's business practices may attract social pressure from activists.

2) Activists pressure some companies more than others – the "soft targets."

3) When consumers, employees or investors penalize targeted companies – financially or otherwise – companies act to improve their corporate social performance.

In a private-politics-driven market, penalties and rewards are unevenly granted. Prof. Baron writes:

"Dividing the dataset into consumer and industrial industries reveals that the slope of the social market line for consumer industries is positive (i.e., CFP is increasing in CSP), whereas it is negative for firms in the industrial dataset…. "This may be due to rewards that are available to firms that sell to consumers and the absence of those rewards for firms that sell to other firms."

In other words, a consumer-facing firm can profit from its better ESG performance, thereby rewarding its shareholders for its CSP efforts. A firm that sells capital goods has, historically, less market incentive to improve its CSP.

SRI Helps Correct a Market Failure

Why did "The Economics and Politics of Corporate Social Performance" win the Moskowitz Prize? It is a study of CSR, not SRI, and it found only weak financial rewards for good corporate social performance. Why, then, is it of "practical significance to practitioners of socially responsible investing," according to the Prize judges?

The answer, perhaps, is revealed by the discrepancy between CSP's impact on consumer and industrial firms' profitability. In Prof. Baron's tripartite market structure, firms that respond to social pressure will be more profitable – if product market and capital market actors are aware of private political action.

The inability of non-consumer-facing firms to profit from CSP is a market failure. Individuals signal to consumer firms that they will pay for responsible corporate behavior, but for wholesalers, this signal – and its corresponding impact on profitability and investment returns – is muffled.

ESG investors amplify this signal – this willingness of individuals to reward ethical business practices – through the capital markets. By considering the CSP of consumer and industrial firms alike, SRI investors' feedback can help capital markets price the potential value of responsible business practices.

This form of private politics – or "lobbying the corporation," in the words of another 1970s critic – upends the belief that CSR is "subversive" in a market economy.

A follow-up to this KLD Blog article will suggest that social responsibility is a legitimate concern of corporate management, even in Milton Friedman's world. As Prof. Baron's research shows, economic actors in a free society are willing to pay for better corporate ethics.

To understand why, we need only dispense with the "faith and speculation" that, in David P. Baron's words, obscure "the relations between social performance, financial performance, and social pressure."

Nine of the 13 Canadian companies that will give shareholders their first vote on executive compensation have agreed in principle on a draft resolution that will appear on proxy ballots in 2010. The resolution is drawn from a draft model "say on pay" policy crafted by the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance (CCGG), which represents 41 investors managing over $1 trillion in assets.

The CCGG, which drafted its model policy in consultation with Canadian issuers, has urged companies to standardize their "say on pay" policies. While the board will decide the final wording of the proposal in the proxy circular, the nine companies are expected to recommend the CCGG's draft.

"A lot of drafting and consultation went into this policy," CCGG director of research Paul Schneider told Risk & Governance Weekly.

The draft resolution is prefaced by a statement noting that the purpose of the "say on pay" vote is to ensure directors are accountable for their compensation decisions. While shareholders provide their collective advisory vote on compensation, directors remain fully responsible for investment decisions. The draft policy suggests the following wording for the say on pay resolution: "Resolved, on an advisory basis and not to diminish the role and responsibilities of the board of directors, that the shareholders accept the approach to executive compensation disclosed in the Company's information circular delivered in advance of the [insert year] annual meeting of shareholders."

The CCGG's model policy states that say on pay resolutions should be seen as part of ongoing engagement efforts between companies and shareholders. At the heart of the policy is the board's belief that it is important to have regular and constructive dialogue with shareholders. The model policy provides examples of how to elicit feedback, including through meetings between boards and shareholders, investor surveys, town hall meetings, and web-based tools enabling shareholders to ask questions of the board.

The model policy also addresses the question of how the board responds to the results of the say on pay vote. The policy states that companies will disclose the results of pay votes and take the results into account when considering future compensation policies. In the event that a "significant" number of shareholders oppose the resolution, the policy states the board will further consult with shareholders to discuss specific concerns. The company will then disclose, no later than in the proxy circular for the next shareholders' meeting, a summary of the comments from shareholders and any subsequent changes to compensation policies.

The draft policy does not specify the level of opposition to a "say on pay" resolution which would be considered significant and would prompt the company to consult further with shareholders. The CCGG appears to prefer a case-by-case approach to analyzing against votes, taking into account the shareholder base of each company.

While shareholder proposals filed in 2009 calling for advisory pay votes are largely responsible for prompting the 13 Canadian issuers to provide for the right, the CCGG's policy urges companies to adopt the vote voluntarily. The Shareholder Association for Research & Education (SHARE), which filed "say on pay" proposals on behalf of Meritas Mutual Funds in 2009, continues to engage with companies on the subject of advisory pay votes. SHARE officials tell RiskMetrics they have contacted about 30 companies since 2007 to recommend adopting a say on pay advisory vote. Of the 13 companies that have committed to a say on pay vote in 2010, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has the earliest meeting date of Feb. 25. The CCGG is encouraging interested parties to submit comments on its draft Model Say on Pay Policy by Nov. 25.

RiskMetrics Group today announced the opening of its annual comment period for its 2010 proxy voting policies. The comment period, part of RiskMetrics' policy development process, offers institutional investors, corporate issuers, and industry constituents the opportunity to provide feedback on RiskMetrics' draft policies.

The comment period runs through November 11 and covers updates to RiskMetrics' proxy voting policy in markets worldwide. Topics covered include takeover defenses, board and director independence, executive compensation, and share purchase authorities.

RiskMetrics gathers extensive input each year from clients and market constituents through a policy survey, issue-oriented roundtables and a unique open comment period to ensure its voting policies comprise a broad range of views. This year's policy survey had over 700 respondents, weighing in on issues ranging from management say-on-pay to sustainability and corporate responsibility. The full results from the survey are posted to RiskMetrics' Policy Gateway.

RiskMetrics Group plans to release its final 2010 U.S. and International policy updates on November 20 and its Global Policy Summary and Concise Guidelines in late-December. To participate in RiskMetrics' comment period, please visit here. To learn more about RiskMetrics' policy formulation process, please visit here.

As corporations have come to recognize growing interest in their environmental impact, most firms have chosen to constructively engage with the public. The "greenest" companies have reduced their energy use and the impact of their products and operations, and many others have at least claimed to do so.

Such "greenwashing" is a concern of investors who consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in their evaluations of corporate sustainability. But even as major firms have chosen, perhaps grudgingly, to work with their ESG stakeholders, at least one business lobby has taken a different tack.

Emily Stone of Green Century Capital Management has shared a telling letter on the climate change debate from David Chavern, Chief Operating Officer of the US Chamber of Commerce, which is reprinted in full below.

The letter's combative tone is certainly a change from most environment-related public statements in 2009. In response to high-profile defections from the Chamber, Mr. Chavern suggests that businesses face a "campaign against us being carried out by our normal adversaries -- trial lawyers, activist unions, environmental extremists, etc."

Ms. Stone has noted, in a message to the Social Investment Forum listserv, that investors are missing from this pejorative collection of bogeymen. In fact, 43 investor groups, representing billions in holdings, have together asked many firms to distance themselves from the Chamber's position. So far, Exelon, PG&E, Nike, and others have done so.

Mr. Chavern's letter calls for businesses to present a unified front against "interest groups [that] are looking for public leverage to force us to do things against the best interests of the business community."

Policy conflicts between interest groups are a natural part of democracy, and the Chamber of Commerce is right to fight for its members' objectives. Still, regarding environmental policy, it seems to have drawn inaccurate battle lines. The threat of climate change has already changed the economic and political climate, and this has helped forge new alliances among many erstwhile "adversaries." The New York Times reports that it has also fractured "once-monolithic" lobbies like the oil and gas industry.

Are these renegade firms in the thrall of lawyers, unions and extremists? Or are they simply responding to business risks that the Chamber is neglecting to acknowledge?

In an October 15 release, Green Century and Walden Asset Management quoted Bruce F. Freed, President of the Center for Political Accountability, about the risks of "misalignment" between businesses and their advocates:

"Climate change is one of those major issues where misalignment between companies and trade associations carries serious bottom line risks for companies. Good corporate governance should lead companies to assure that their trade associations do not engage in activities and use their funds in ways that may damage the company's reputation or be at odds with its stated public policy and business objectives."

In this fight, perhaps the Chamber should reconsider its strategy. If so many shareowners and members are its "adversaries," for whom is it working?

[The full text of David Chavern's letter follows.]

Special Message from David Chavern, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce October 16, 2009 We understand that you may have received e-mails, letters and others communications from various groups asking your organization to end its association with the U.S. Chamber. Please note that these calls against the Chamber are part of a broad-based, multi-source campaign against us being carried out by our normal adversaries -- trial lawyers, activist unions, environmental extremists, etc. It is a "corporate campaign" in the classic sense, where interest groups are looking for public leverage to force us to do things against the best interests of the business community. (In fact, we are going to be sending you some additional information in the near future about the scope and objectives of this campaign.) Frankly, these efforts are simply the result of how effective we have been in opposing Card Check, as well as aspects of proposed healthcare, capital market and climate change legislation that we believe would be onerous to business and impede job creation. Our efforts to fix these key pieces of legislation are not going to stop -- business needs health care reform that focuses on reducing costs, we need (as our Capital Markets Commission Report over two years ago called for) modernization of financial regulation across-the-board, and we need and continue to call for comprehensive climate change legislation. The Chamber staff will continue to work day in and day out to ensure the best possible outcomes for the economy and job creation. And we intend to continue being successful, so we expect the negative messages to your organization may continue. In all circumstances, I and other Chamber staff are available to provide you with more background on our policy positions, along with help in any responses that might be warranted. I do apologize, though, for any annoyance and inconvenience these efforts against us might cause you. Thank you very much for your continued support. Please let Tom Donohue or me know if you have any questions or comments. Many thanks, David Chavern Chief Operating Officer

http://www.uschamber.com/chambers/091016chavern_message