Decius:

Perhaps a personal Boycott wouldn't work, but there are more visible actions that can be taken.

Lessig's Thoreau reference is apt here:

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

I'd argue that Google's membership in the Chamber is a thin branch at best.

Have you looked at that website? My first page-load yielded this statement:

The US Chamber of Commerce successfully convinced the Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case, to rule in favor of unlimited corporate donations to politicians.

That page links here which points to the amicus brief in Citizens United but neglects to mention that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a defendant in the primary case under consideration by the Court. It's unsurprising that the US Chamber filed a brief in defense of the state-level Chamber's interests in the case.

Potential petitioners might be interested to know that the ACLU also filed a brief in line with that of the Chamber:

In scheduling this case for reargument, the Court specifically requested briefs on whether section 203 should now be struck down as facially unconstitutional. The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again.

Are all of these petitioners now going to march on the ACLU, too? Furthermore, are they going to cast a pox on all those who have ever donated to the ACLU?

From the archive, Decius, in 2004:

There is a lot of bad speech in our democracy.

But in my experience the answer to bad speech has always been more speech.

It strikes me as at least slightly ironic that the revised subject/title of thread is "Put your money where your mouth is", which is precisely the idea for which the Chamber is being castigated.

RE: SOPA: Put your money where your mouth is