Published on Thursday, September 10, 2009 by Open Left
by Chris Bowers
Then just wait and see what happens after, as expected, the Supreme Court allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of their favored candidates:
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates in time for next year's elections. Such a step could roll back a century of attempts to restrain the power of corporate treasuries in American politics.
The justices cut short their summer recess for a lively special argument that indicated the court's conservative skeptics of campaign finance laws have the upper hand over its liberals, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the high court's swing vote, but a firm opponent of many campaign restrictions, at one point told the government's lawyer, "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election."
To a certain extent, it is hard to even conceptualize why this matters. To paraphrase Dick Durbin, powerful moneyed interests already run the government. From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, check out the gains made by of wealthy interests over the past 30-35 years:
There are the glorious results of bi-partisan, moderate-approved economic policy for you.
Through vast lobbying, astroturf, media and legal efforts that dwarf anything progressives have created, powerful moneyed interests in this country have been able largely to control legislation even after 30-year peak in Democratic electoral success. A ruling like this will simply be the icing on the cake.
© 2009 Open Left
Chris Bowers is a founding member of OpenLeft.com.E-mailPrintShare
Close Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Newsvine Facebook Google Yahoo Technorati
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/10-12
Showing posts with label Lobbyist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lobbyist. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Millions of Americans at Risk as Chemical Lobby Blocks Legislation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 25, 2009
11:26 AM
CONTACT: Greenpeace
Jane Kochersperger, (202) 680-3798 cell; Mae
Stevens, Policy Analyst, (202) 319-2454 direct
Millions of Americans at Risk as Chemical Lobby Blocks Legislation
Lobby Includes Former Members of Congress & Senior Obama Supporters
WASHINGTON - August 25 - In a new Greenpeace investigation into the lobbying of the chemical industry against chemical security legislation, researchers identified an army of 169 lobbyists who successfully led a campaign to kill legislation in 2008. If passed, the legislation would have significantly reduced the consequences of terrorist attacks on "high risk" chemical plants in the U.S.
Among the chemical industry's legion of lobbyists are former Members of Congress, legislative directors, and chiefs of staff. Most notably, Moses Mercado, of Olgivy represented the American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Hess and Monsanto. Prior to his work with Ogilvy, Mercado worked for former Representative Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and was chief of staff for Representative Gene Green (D-TX), who is a key member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is currently taking up comprehensive chemical security legislation. Mercado was also a Super Delegate (TX) for Obama and turned down a paid position in the presidential campaign because of his registered lobbyist status and instead volunteered extensively for Obama during the campaign.
Other prominent examples in the revolving door crowd include: former Representative Cal Dooley (D-CA), who was appointed CEO of the ACC in 2008; former Representative Gerry Sikorski (D-MN), who was the author of chemical plant right-to-know legislation in 1986 and a former member of the Energy & Commerce Committee; and former Governor John Engler (R-MI), who is the CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers whose members include major chemical companies.
As Senators, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were champions of legislation almost identical to what is now pending in Congress. In 2006, Barack Obama said: "We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms of this debate. We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate interests." Yet while the chemical industry again tries to stall legislation in Congress, the new Obama administration has been silent. Greenpeace posted a video of the Senators' speeches on the issue at: http://vimeo.com/6036562
"It is not yet clear whether industry lobbyists, such as Moses Mercado, who had unprecedented access to Obama in 2008, have been effective in weakening the President's policies on chemical security," said Rick Hind, Legislative Director of Greenpeace.
"Regardless of their resources, we can not let the security of the U.S. be compromised by corporate lobbyists. It's time for Congress and the President to stand up to these influence peddlers and protect the millions of Americans still at risk," said Hind.
In June, a comprehensive bill (H.R. 2868) that would replace the 740 word temporary law prohibiting any requirement of safer chemicals and exempting thousands of chemical facilities moved out of the House Homeland Security committee. If passed, the new legislation would require the highest risk chemical plants to use safer chemicals or processes to reduce the catastrophic risks that currently endanger millions of Americans where feasible. The bill will next be taken up in the House Energy & Commerce Committee in September along with H.R. 3258, a companion water facility bill.
In a March 2009 letter to Congress, 34 chemical industry trade organizations again expressed their opposition to safer chemical processes. This letter served as a roadmap to trace industry trade organizations and the lobbyists they hired to kill chemical security legislation. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is the largest chemical industry trade association. The two largest member companies of the ACC, Dow and DuPont, are active members of many of the trade associations that signed the March 2009 letter.
Using a conservative methodology, Greenpeace estimated a range of spending by the chemical industry lobbying against public safeguards in 2008. The range has a base minimum of nearly $13 million but may be as much as $44 million. The data was obtained from the official lobby reports gathered from the website http://sopr.senate.gov, the official site of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.
.###
Independent campaigning organization that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/08/25-3
August 25, 2009
11:26 AM
CONTACT: Greenpeace
Jane Kochersperger, (202) 680-3798 cell; Mae
Stevens, Policy Analyst, (202) 319-2454 direct
Millions of Americans at Risk as Chemical Lobby Blocks Legislation
Lobby Includes Former Members of Congress & Senior Obama Supporters
WASHINGTON - August 25 - In a new Greenpeace investigation into the lobbying of the chemical industry against chemical security legislation, researchers identified an army of 169 lobbyists who successfully led a campaign to kill legislation in 2008. If passed, the legislation would have significantly reduced the consequences of terrorist attacks on "high risk" chemical plants in the U.S.
Among the chemical industry's legion of lobbyists are former Members of Congress, legislative directors, and chiefs of staff. Most notably, Moses Mercado, of Olgivy represented the American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Hess and Monsanto. Prior to his work with Ogilvy, Mercado worked for former Representative Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and was chief of staff for Representative Gene Green (D-TX), who is a key member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is currently taking up comprehensive chemical security legislation. Mercado was also a Super Delegate (TX) for Obama and turned down a paid position in the presidential campaign because of his registered lobbyist status and instead volunteered extensively for Obama during the campaign.
Other prominent examples in the revolving door crowd include: former Representative Cal Dooley (D-CA), who was appointed CEO of the ACC in 2008; former Representative Gerry Sikorski (D-MN), who was the author of chemical plant right-to-know legislation in 1986 and a former member of the Energy & Commerce Committee; and former Governor John Engler (R-MI), who is the CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers whose members include major chemical companies.
As Senators, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were champions of legislation almost identical to what is now pending in Congress. In 2006, Barack Obama said: "We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms of this debate. We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate interests." Yet while the chemical industry again tries to stall legislation in Congress, the new Obama administration has been silent. Greenpeace posted a video of the Senators' speeches on the issue at: http://vimeo.com/6036562
"It is not yet clear whether industry lobbyists, such as Moses Mercado, who had unprecedented access to Obama in 2008, have been effective in weakening the President's policies on chemical security," said Rick Hind, Legislative Director of Greenpeace.
"Regardless of their resources, we can not let the security of the U.S. be compromised by corporate lobbyists. It's time for Congress and the President to stand up to these influence peddlers and protect the millions of Americans still at risk," said Hind.
In June, a comprehensive bill (H.R. 2868) that would replace the 740 word temporary law prohibiting any requirement of safer chemicals and exempting thousands of chemical facilities moved out of the House Homeland Security committee. If passed, the new legislation would require the highest risk chemical plants to use safer chemicals or processes to reduce the catastrophic risks that currently endanger millions of Americans where feasible. The bill will next be taken up in the House Energy & Commerce Committee in September along with H.R. 3258, a companion water facility bill.
In a March 2009 letter to Congress, 34 chemical industry trade organizations again expressed their opposition to safer chemical processes. This letter served as a roadmap to trace industry trade organizations and the lobbyists they hired to kill chemical security legislation. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is the largest chemical industry trade association. The two largest member companies of the ACC, Dow and DuPont, are active members of many of the trade associations that signed the March 2009 letter.
Using a conservative methodology, Greenpeace estimated a range of spending by the chemical industry lobbying against public safeguards in 2008. The range has a base minimum of nearly $13 million but may be as much as $44 million. The data was obtained from the official lobby reports gathered from the website http://sopr.senate.gov, the official site of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.
.###
Independent campaigning organization that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/08/25-3
Friday, August 14, 2009
POWER POLITICS: Is the proposed clean energy agency a dirty deal for taxpayers and the environment?
Photo of Entergy's Arkansas nuclear plant from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website)
Comment: The nuke bunch is just so greedy and willing to ruin people lives with their Nuke Plants and Uranium mining! Our gov't will sail us down the nuke river while they take money from the nuke bunch but the taxpayers pay for the nuke plants! Demand your senators to stop talking money from groups that are subsidies by the taxpayers! No to nuke Power and ban uranium mining now!
By Sue Sturgis on July 27, 2009 9:12 AM
POWER POLITICS: Is the proposed clean energy agency a dirty deal for taxpayers and the environment?
POWER POLITICS: Is the proposed clean energy agency a dirty deal for taxpayers and the environment?
U.S. lawmakers are considering legislation that would create a new independent federal agency to promote government investment in clean energy.
But watchdogs are raising questions about whether the way the proposed agency is structured is unfair to taxpayers and bad for the environment. Among their concerns are its bias toward nuclear power -- a critical issue for the South, which is at the center of the nuclear industry's planned revival.
"We support the financing of clean energy technologies to promote the domestic development and deployment of technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most efficient, environmentally sound manner possible," stated a recent letter to lawmakers signed by 17 environmental groups. "However, the proposed Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) will not achieve these important goals and will in fact, as drafted, pose unnecessary and potentially enormous risks to our environment and to the U.S. taxpayer."
CEDA would be established within the Department of Energy through legislation titled the "21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act" introduced by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and set to be combined with the Senate version of the climate bill. CEDA would provide billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed credit, including loans and loan guarantees, to the private sector to invest in energy technologies.
Similar legislation was also introduced in the House by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and added via amendment to the recently approved House climate bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) that passed June 26 by a vote of 219-212.
There are significant differences between the House and Senate CEDA proposals, with the version now being considered in the Senate drawing strong criticism from sustainable energy advocates. Some of the key concerns:
* The Senate version allows unlimited loan guarantees without congressional oversight. It provides an exemption from Section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act, circumventing the congressional appropriations process and relying instead on the White House Office of Management and Budget's model calculating default risk and how much of that cost of that risk should be borne by the company.
But watchdogs are raising questions about whether the way the proposed agency is structured is unfair to taxpayers and bad for the environment. Among their concerns are its bias toward nuclear power -- a critical issue for the South, which is at the center of the nuclear industry's planned revival.
"We support the financing of clean energy technologies to promote the domestic development and deployment of technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most efficient, environmentally sound manner possible," stated a recent letter to lawmakers signed by 17 environmental groups. "However, the proposed Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) will not achieve these important goals and will in fact, as drafted, pose unnecessary and potentially enormous risks to our environment and to the U.S. taxpayer."
CEDA would be established within the Department of Energy through legislation titled the "21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act" introduced by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and set to be combined with the Senate version of the climate bill. CEDA would provide billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed credit, including loans and loan guarantees, to the private sector to invest in energy technologies.
Similar legislation was also introduced in the House by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and added via amendment to the recently approved House climate bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) that passed June 26 by a vote of 219-212.
There are significant differences between the House and Senate CEDA proposals, with the version now being considered in the Senate drawing strong criticism from sustainable energy advocates. Some of the key concerns:
* The Senate version allows unlimited loan guarantees without congressional oversight. It provides an exemption from Section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act, circumventing the congressional appropriations process and relying instead on the White House Office of Management and Budget's model calculating default risk and how much of that cost of that risk should be borne by the company.
The House version of the legislation doesn't include this exemption, which means CEDA would have to get congressional approval for requested loan guarantees. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have warned that the default risk cost is hard to calculate and is likely to be underestimated, leaving taxpayers to bail out private companies that can't make their loan payments.
* The Senate version allows one technology to hog all the money. The House caps at 30% the amount of total dollars available that can be given to any one technology. However, the Senate version has no caps, which means one technology could enjoy the lion's share of the available subsidies.
* The Senate version does not include a greenhouse gas metric. That is, the bill does nothing to ensure priority is given to those technologies that cut the most greenhouse gas emissions per dollar invested in the shortest amount of time. The House version, on the other hand, requires that priority be given to projects that cut greenhouse gases the quickest and cheapest.
Given those provisions -- coupled with the Senate climate legislation's general friendliness toward nuclear power, which it calls a "clean and secure domestic energy" whose use should be expanded -- energy policy expert Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility said during a recent discussion of the bill that CEDA could essentially act as a "slush fund" for nuclear power. That would be a bad deal for taxpayers, given how costly nuclear power is compared to other more environmentally sustainable energy sources.
How much more expensive? A recent study [pdf] by Mark Cooper of the University of Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment estimated that new nuclear plants will cost between 12 and 20 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to an average of 6 cents for efficiency and renewables. Cooper calculated that the plan being promoted by Senate Energy Committee member Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to build 100 new reactors across the United States would result in up to $4 trillion in costs over and above what it would cost to generate the same equivalent power from efficiency and renewables.
How did the Senate's CEDA proposal end up so biased toward nuclear power -- even though the technology is not only expensive but also a poor solution to the global warming problem due to its long construction time, the nuclear fuel chain's sizable carbon footprint, and nuclear plants' considerable heat emissions? It might be helpful to consider the relationship between the measure's primary sponsors and the nuclear power industry.
When he was last up for re-election in 2006, Sen. Bingaman was the top Democratic recipient of campaign cash from the Nuclear Energy Institute PAC, which represents the interests of the nuclear industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org database. He received $6,000 from NEI's PAC that year, tied with Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and surpassed only by three Republicans -- Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and James Talent of Missouri -- who received $7,000 each. When co-sponsor Lisa Murkowski was up for re-election in 2004, NEI contributed $6,000 to her campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. Altogether since 2000, Bingaman has received a total of $7,999 from NEI and Murkowski $9,500.
And Bingaman has gotten more from NEI than just money: In 2006, he also won NEI's William S. Lee Award for Leadership, asking the lobbying group in his acceptance speech to "do your part to use those tools that Congress has put in place to ensure that nuclear power achieves its potential as part of our future energy mix." It now appears the industry is doing just that -- with Bingaman's help.
But watchdogs are fighting back against the legislation's proposed nuclear giveaways. They are calling on concerned citizens to write to their Senators and President Obama and ask them to oppose any additional taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear power industry in the climate legislation. As PSR notes, the industry's own estimates say it already stands to profit by $1 billion a year from a carbon cap.
"We can have nuclear power or we can address the climate crisis," the Nuclear Information & Resource Service says in its call for action on the legislation. "We can't do both."
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/07/power-politics-is-the-proposed-clean-energy-agency-a-dirty-deal-for-taxpayers-and-the-environment.html
* The Senate version allows one technology to hog all the money. The House caps at 30% the amount of total dollars available that can be given to any one technology. However, the Senate version has no caps, which means one technology could enjoy the lion's share of the available subsidies.
* The Senate version does not include a greenhouse gas metric. That is, the bill does nothing to ensure priority is given to those technologies that cut the most greenhouse gas emissions per dollar invested in the shortest amount of time. The House version, on the other hand, requires that priority be given to projects that cut greenhouse gases the quickest and cheapest.
Given those provisions -- coupled with the Senate climate legislation's general friendliness toward nuclear power, which it calls a "clean and secure domestic energy" whose use should be expanded -- energy policy expert Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility said during a recent discussion of the bill that CEDA could essentially act as a "slush fund" for nuclear power. That would be a bad deal for taxpayers, given how costly nuclear power is compared to other more environmentally sustainable energy sources.
How much more expensive? A recent study [pdf] by Mark Cooper of the University of Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment estimated that new nuclear plants will cost between 12 and 20 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to an average of 6 cents for efficiency and renewables. Cooper calculated that the plan being promoted by Senate Energy Committee member Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to build 100 new reactors across the United States would result in up to $4 trillion in costs over and above what it would cost to generate the same equivalent power from efficiency and renewables.
How did the Senate's CEDA proposal end up so biased toward nuclear power -- even though the technology is not only expensive but also a poor solution to the global warming problem due to its long construction time, the nuclear fuel chain's sizable carbon footprint, and nuclear plants' considerable heat emissions? It might be helpful to consider the relationship between the measure's primary sponsors and the nuclear power industry.
When he was last up for re-election in 2006, Sen. Bingaman was the top Democratic recipient of campaign cash from the Nuclear Energy Institute PAC, which represents the interests of the nuclear industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org database. He received $6,000 from NEI's PAC that year, tied with Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and surpassed only by three Republicans -- Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and James Talent of Missouri -- who received $7,000 each. When co-sponsor Lisa Murkowski was up for re-election in 2004, NEI contributed $6,000 to her campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. Altogether since 2000, Bingaman has received a total of $7,999 from NEI and Murkowski $9,500.
And Bingaman has gotten more from NEI than just money: In 2006, he also won NEI's William S. Lee Award for Leadership, asking the lobbying group in his acceptance speech to "do your part to use those tools that Congress has put in place to ensure that nuclear power achieves its potential as part of our future energy mix." It now appears the industry is doing just that -- with Bingaman's help.
But watchdogs are fighting back against the legislation's proposed nuclear giveaways. They are calling on concerned citizens to write to their Senators and President Obama and ask them to oppose any additional taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear power industry in the climate legislation. As PSR notes, the industry's own estimates say it already stands to profit by $1 billion a year from a carbon cap.
"We can have nuclear power or we can address the climate crisis," the Nuclear Information & Resource Service says in its call for action on the legislation. "We can't do both."
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/07/power-politics-is-the-proposed-clean-energy-agency-a-dirty-deal-for-taxpayers-and-the-environment.html
Friday, March 27, 2009
Norfolk needs a lobbyist free of distractions
Comment: VUI, has another lobbyist!!!
The Virginian-Pilot© March 27, 2009
A $3.5 billion proposal to privatize the state's port operations could have a far-reaching impact on many of the region's local governments and businesses. That's provoked questions about how a lobbying firm with close ties to many of the key players in the deal will sort out its potential conflicts of interest.
Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim is correct to broach the issue now, before his city finds itself at a disadvantage in delicate financial negotiations.
Kemper Consulting represents Norfolk on issues before the legislature and state agencies. But CenterPoint Properties, the Illinois company seeking to take over operations of the state's three port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Newport News, is also a client.
CenterPoint's proposal is likely to be one of several pitched to the state this year. State officials will compare the merits of all bids, while also weighing whether Virginia would be better off maintaining control of its most valuable asset.
Norfolk's desires can't and won't be the only factor in the negotiations, but as the host city for the largest terminal it can't afford to get lost in the jockeying. It must have an advocate whose interests are in complete alignment.
CenterPoint is offering to pay Norfolk $3 million annually to cover lost tax revenues, road repairs from truck traffic and other services. That's nearly triple the pittance now paid by the state, but well short of the costs now borne by the city.
Fraim is reasonably giving Kemper time to propose a solution that could satisfy his concerns, but a resolution could be complicated by other clients of the firm. Kemper also represents the Virginia Maritime Association, a group of more than 400 companies that promotes commercial growth at the port.
In an unrelated matter, Kemper has taken on a new client in Virginia Uranium, a company seeking state approval to mine in Pittsylvania County. Virginia Beach opposes the mine until it receives assurances that the project will not contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's primary source of drinking water.
Norfolk has taken no position on the matter but is monitoring the issue because it stores and treats Beach water supplies.
The port is properly Norfolk's top concern. Strong commercial growth at the waterfront could assure the city's economic prosperity, but hasty deals will bring high costs and years of regret.
Given those stakes, city officials must demand a lobbyist free of distractions
The Virginian-Pilot© March 27, 2009
A $3.5 billion proposal to privatize the state's port operations could have a far-reaching impact on many of the region's local governments and businesses. That's provoked questions about how a lobbying firm with close ties to many of the key players in the deal will sort out its potential conflicts of interest.
Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim is correct to broach the issue now, before his city finds itself at a disadvantage in delicate financial negotiations.
Kemper Consulting represents Norfolk on issues before the legislature and state agencies. But CenterPoint Properties, the Illinois company seeking to take over operations of the state's three port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Newport News, is also a client.
CenterPoint's proposal is likely to be one of several pitched to the state this year. State officials will compare the merits of all bids, while also weighing whether Virginia would be better off maintaining control of its most valuable asset.
Norfolk's desires can't and won't be the only factor in the negotiations, but as the host city for the largest terminal it can't afford to get lost in the jockeying. It must have an advocate whose interests are in complete alignment.
CenterPoint is offering to pay Norfolk $3 million annually to cover lost tax revenues, road repairs from truck traffic and other services. That's nearly triple the pittance now paid by the state, but well short of the costs now borne by the city.
Fraim is reasonably giving Kemper time to propose a solution that could satisfy his concerns, but a resolution could be complicated by other clients of the firm. Kemper also represents the Virginia Maritime Association, a group of more than 400 companies that promotes commercial growth at the port.
In an unrelated matter, Kemper has taken on a new client in Virginia Uranium, a company seeking state approval to mine in Pittsylvania County. Virginia Beach opposes the mine until it receives assurances that the project will not contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's primary source of drinking water.
Norfolk has taken no position on the matter but is monitoring the issue because it stores and treats Beach water supplies.
The port is properly Norfolk's top concern. Strong commercial growth at the waterfront could assure the city's economic prosperity, but hasty deals will bring high costs and years of regret.
Given those stakes, city officials must demand a lobbyist free of distractions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
