Has The Public Had Its Fill of Uranium Pro-Mining's Special Interest Group?

Let me put this into perspective: In 2002, I was one of two "legislative agents" ( lobbyists) for a local of the American Federation of Teachers representing community college faculty and staff before Kentucky's legislature. The local was not a collective bargaining agent nor was membership mandatory although the issues for which we lobbied stood to benefit all faculty and staff within the community college aspect of Kentucky's community/technical college system (it's an oddly trifurcated system). We both drove to Frankfort 3-4 days a week, 110 miles round trip each, to meet with legislators, attend committee hearings, etc. (and we drove separately since we lived in opposite directions). In the evenings, we prepared "position papers" (using our personal computers and printers) for distribution to whichever chamber we were focusing on the next day. We were not kin to, or friends with, anyone in the legislature although my partner had lobbied in Frankfort before for the same local. In 2004, I was the local's sole legislative agent. My salary for the entire session each of those two years was $4,200.00 from which I also paid all of my expenses; neither of us had an expense account with which to "entertain" legislators. I was not otherwise employed during the terms of the sessions; my lobbying partner took unpaid leave from her full-time employment. The issues on which we worked certainly were not as grave as uranium mining...they were far more arbitrary whereas uranium mining is pretty cut and dried...do it or don't do it...but the issues were still important to the faculty and staff who stood to gain or lose; for less than $10,000 combined in 2002 (and just me...$4200.00...in 2004), we were their voices. We were surprisingly effective...we exceeded everyone's expectations. Why? Because we had strength in numbers behind us. We broadcast emails to union members and other interested faculty and staff so that they could call, email and write to their individual senators and representatives, both to their legislative offices and their home offices. We had members show up for committee hearings. We used grassroots organizing techniques and they worked. They worked so well that the local no longer employs any registered agents to lobby...the members rely on themselves to send their message.

Now...let's look at VUI. They've spent close to $100,000.00 on lobbyists and yet last year, their mining study bill was soundly defeated. Why? Because SCC and other anti-uranium voices were heard loudly and clearly by the General Assembly in Richmond. Citizens wrote and called and traveled to Richmond for committee hearings. Grass-roots organizing worked. In fact, it worked so well that VUI had to figure out a way to circumvent the Assembly for the 2009 session, at least where the mining study was concerned.

The letter below poses some excellent questions and makes some excellent points. Read it. Send it to eveyone you know. Print it out and give it to eveyone you see. Why? Because while money does talk, grassroots efforts can talk louder...and that's the voice...your voice...that must be heard in Richmond, now and during every GA session until the mining moratorium is firmly cemented into place.

Many of you are quite active in the fight...more of you are needed. You've got strong leadership...experienced leadership...grassroots leadership. Take advantage of it! Join SCC...subscribe to the Yahoo Group...keep up with the blog. When the 2009 session of the General Assembly convenes in January, 2009, the voices of everyone who opposes the destruction of Southside (and points beyond) must be heard in unison. Let VUI spend its money...SCC and the anti-uranium movement can make enough noise to be heard without trying to outspend VUI.

Mr. Hoffman says it all.

To the editor:

In the story, “Report tackles lobbying efforts,” (Nov. 24, page A1), it was reported that Virginia Uranium Inc. has paid nearly $100,000 to lobbyists in order to determine the safety of uranium mining in Virginia.

Would a full and open disclosure by VUI show the mining corporation to be (as quoted by VUI geologist Patrick Wales) “a small, locally-owned company” instead of a subsidiary of Canadian and French mining interests and control?

Regarding the reported $100,000 VUI spent to pay lobbyists, Wales was also quoted as saying, “Doing business in Richmond, unfortunately, requires someone to guide you through that ‘process.’” If I were a skeptical person, I might ask, “Is that another way to say money talks?”

Has the general public finally had more than its fill of special corporate interests thrown at them on the uranium mining issue?

All of us must remember to remind our elected officials that they were put into office by us, the voters, and not by corporate lobbyists. We do not want Southside Virginia and beyond ruined within 10 years by a uranium mining and milling corporation.

Uranium mining does terrible, irreparable damage to people, animals, the environment and the economy. It doesn’t cost $100,000 to prove that!

In fact, it doesn’t cost anything but thinking people’s time in research, learning and caring. The caring issue means we need to demonstrate how much we care about our family, our neighbors, our homes, our animals, our communities, our acres and acres of beautiful land and our streams and rivers.

We will demonstrate this by just saying, “no” to uranium mining and milling in Southside Virginia — and Virginia as a whole. The risks to all are not worth the potential wealth for a few.

TOD J. HOFFMAN

Chatham

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/great_service_having_your_fill_and_worried/7781/