Public Citizen’s Congress Watch (our colleagues in DC) sent a letter to the FEC urging them to deny Stephen Colbert’s request for a media exemption. Public Citizen’s own Craig Holman said that “This would carve out a gaping loophole in campaign finance laws, allowing any company involved in media to foot, in secret and without limit, the electioneering expenses of political committees. If the press exemption were to be so dangerously expanded by the FEC, the next request will be for media companies to directly finance unlimited candidate campaigns under the press exemption – an abuse that is already being advocated in some quarters.”  What does that mean?  Well, it means if Viacom resources can be used to produce ads for ColbertPAC, then Fox could possibly produce ads for their contributors, such as Karl Rove and his SuperPAC, CrossroadsGPS. It would be a terrible slippery slope and stretch our campaign finance laws to the breaking point.

The members of the FEC appeared to take notice of Public Citizen’s request, voting in favor of allowing Stephen Colbert to have a SuperPAC, but with the narrow media exemption we advocated. In a vote of 5-1, the FEC approved a modified version of the Colbert Advisory Opinion request that is fairly narrow and consistent with the current press exemption.

The FEC today has made a good decision in the minds of advocates for campaign finance reform. They have drawn a line in the sand between media companies and political action committees. They have also not been hypocritical in their decisions, and thus have allowed for a comedian to create a SuperPAC (much like the ones Karl Rove and Sarah Palin have created), who may as well be comedians because their campaign finance activities make us laugh because without laughing we’d cry. With the Supreme Court’s recent controversial ruling on public financing of elections, it’s nice to have some comic relief in the twisted world that is campaign finance.

Thanks to our friends at CREW who posted this video on their blog:

Colbert makes some good points here, but also does what we think is really necessary: by “kidding on the square“, he’s using humor to point out exactly how ridiculous our campaign finance laws are. Because when he starts running his ads, people will notice. And hopefully they’ll realize the real jokes are not Colbert, but the other superPACs out there.

Colbert put it best: “Some of you have cynically asked “Is this some kind of joke?” I, for one, don’t think participating in democracy is a joke… that wanting to know what the rules are is a joke. But I do have one federal election law joke.

Knock Knock

(who’s there)

Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions.

(Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions who?)

That’s the thing, I don’t think I should have to tell you.”

The joke is serious. Colbert is right. The Supreme Court with Citizens United have created the most absurd unintended consequences ever. We need real campaign finance reform, but we hope Colbert’s laughs will bring others to the cause.

City of Houston Implements Stage One Water Conservation Measures

Lack of rain and record high temperatures that have plagued 98 percent of the state have made it necessary for the City of Houston to institute Stage One Water Conservation Measures, as outlined in the city’s code.

Houston is asking its residents to limit lawn watering to the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. and NO more than two days per week.

Residents are asked to abide by the following schedule:

• Sundays and Thursdays for customers with even-numbered street addresses
• Saturdays and Wednesdays for customers with odd-numbered street addresses

The City will also be contacting large commercial water customers to request voluntary reductions in their water consumption.

City departments are instituting a water use reduction program which includes but is not limited to:

• Reducing water use by 10 percent
• Implementing corrective measures to eliminate water waste

While the City of Houston currently has adequate water capacity to meet the demands of its customers, the following tips can also help our customers be good water stewards during one of the most severe droughts in Texas history and into the future in a state where water is a precious and finite resource:

• Keep showers under five minutes
• Remember to turn water off while brushing your teeth
• Wash only full loads of dishes or clothes
• Replace older model showerheads and older faucet aerators with new low-flow ones, and install water conservative toilets
• Inspect toilets for silent leaks by putting food coloring in the toilet tank. If colored water leaks into the toilet bowl before it is flushed, water is being lost due to a worn flapper.

If you live in Houston and want more information on the city’s water conservation measures, please contact Alvin Wright at Alvin.Wright@houstontx.gov or call 832.395.2455.

The restrictions are the latest prompt in the series of drought related events and measures ranging from Rick Perry’s plea for divine intervention and the recent decision by the LCRA to extend the debate and final vote to approve a contract giving a water to the poorly planned White Stallion Energy Center.

The issuance by the city emphasizes personal responsibility in the face of questionable water availability and residents throughout the state should consider implementing water saving measures even in times were rain isn’t a distant memory.  Some utility companies offer incentives for installing low-flow systems, and conversion kits continue to get cheaper, so purchasing them at any time could reduce your monthly costs and help out the environment too.

Consider, purchasing a rain barrel to capture water when it does rain.  This can keep your gardening investments more viable in times of drought.  Consider landscaping decisions such as xeriscaping (using drought tolerant plants that need less water even in times when drought is not a consideration, and reduces some of you landscape maintenance), minimizing lawn space in favor of beds for plants or replacing thirstier grasses like the very popular St. Augustine for more drought resistant varieties.

Everyone knows Texas weather is one of the more unpredictable things in the world, so carefully monitoring and rationing water usage at all times is most definitely a good decision.

As quoted in the article, Sherri Greenberg, former State Representative and interim director at the Center of Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, says that “we must be very careful when we talk about personal privacy, security and certain data that should never… be online”.  Public Citizen’s own Andy Wilson was also quoted in the article saying that it should not be a problem to take out the private information and that “it should be fairly simple if it is in the form of a spreadsheet or a database to just simply eliminate those columns of [private] data.” Adding that it is “a technical issue, not a privacy issue”.

Many lawmakers and experts hope that the new bills will help with efficiency as well as transparency. Representative Kirk Watson from Austin thinks that when the information is released, some people will “offer ideas for efficiency in government”. Although lofty thinking by Rep. Watson, the public disclosure laws passed in the Legislature will be a major victory in the fight for good government. It is difficult to predict the ramifications of the new laws, but at least now it is up to the public to determine the outcome.

Tim Pawlenty

Mit Romney

With the 2012 presidential race heating up, candidates have begun to boast about their high-profile donors. In particular, Texas millionaire Bob Perry has been a significant contributor to both Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney’s campaigns.  It is not uncommon for big donors to give to multiple campaigns, explains Alexander Burns in his Politico article, but Burns goes on to say “the real test of loyalty here will be who –if any– Perry actually bundles contributions for.”  Bundling is when a large group of fundraisers get together to form their own PAC allowing individuals to funnel more money into an election.

Perry also gave to multiple candidates in the 2008 presidential election. He gave the maximum amount of $2,300 to both Romney and McCain in the Republican primary.  However, Perry is hardly alone in hedging his bets.

Michael Beckel’s OpenSecrets blog shows many donors give to multiple campaigns.  The most interesting discovery from Beckel’s report is that many people cross party lines even when they give a substantial amount to each candidate (talk about hedging your bets).  Perhaps the most surprising of the cross-overs are that two donors gave the maximum amount to Rep. Ron Paul and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Beckel offers a quote from an anonymous Democratic campaign operative to explain the multiple donations. The operative said “donations like these are about access. At that level of contribution, you probably get to meet the candidate and have a conversation with them.”

Perry seems to be all about access and creating chances to be in the “winner’s circle” as Larry Sabato describes.  Perry has been a influential person not only in Texas politics but also national politics. He has donated millions of dollars to 527 groups or PACs,  such as Karl Rove’s PAC American Crossroads, Tom Delay’s TRMPAC and ARMPAC (both instrumental in Tom Delay’s criminal conviction) and the highly controversial group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  It appears the 2012 election cycle will be no different for Perry who will continue to use his large amounts of money for access and influence.

Of the 60 lawmakers that have media organizations investments, 6 of them come from Texas.  They are Congressmen Michael McCaul (R-TX26), Kenny Marchant (R-TX24), Michael Burgess (R-TX10), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX25), William Flores (R-TX17) and Blake Farenthold (R-TX27).

          From left to right: Congressmen Bill Flores, Blake Farenthold, Kenny Merchant, Michael Burgess, Lloyd Doggett, and Michael McCaul.

The largest investor in media organizations from the Lone Star State is Rep. Michael McCaul with anywhere from $179,018 to $505,000 invested in companies like Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co. and CBS Corp. The disclosure reports only require members of Congress to list their assets and debts in broad ranges.

Disclosure reports also show that not all members of Congress from Texas are wealthy enough to invest in media organizations however. A Washington Post article points out that many Republican freshman lawmakers who campaigned on reducing the federal debt are in substantial debt themselves.  One such freshman lawmaker is Congressman Farenthold.  The disclosure reports show that the Congressman could have anywhere between $45,000 and $150,000 in credit card debt.  However, Flarenthold does list that he has anywhere from $2,002 to $30,000 in personal media investments in the Walt Disney Co.

The public disclosure reports that came out this week provide the public with a better understanding of how lawmakers chose to spend their money. The reports show that some lawmakers have chosen to invest in companies that are supposed to report in a fair and unbiased manner on campaign issues and congressional ethics. The documents show yet another example of why disclosure laws are important. The public has a right to know how lawmakers spend their own money so they can trust them with their tax dollars.

The influx of money can be attributed to disagreements within the industry by management and cab drivers as described in the Austin American Statesman article by Ben Wear. In the article, General Manager of Austin Yellow Cab Edward Kargbo is quoted as saying that they donated to “council members who we have found to be open to sitting down and hearing both sides.” The main debate is over whether legacy permits should be issued by the city council. The permits would allow drivers with at least 5 years of experience to bypass the three major taxi companies in Austin. The taxi companies are worried that this would lead to a loss of control in the marketplace. In the Place 3 election, Tovo has stated she is in favor of legacy permits whereas Shade has said she is opposed to it.

The large proportion of money that the taxi industry has devoted to this campaign has some people worried like Electric Cab owner Chris Nielsen who has said that City Council members were influenced by donations by cab executives. From The Statesman:

Yellow Cab and Austin Cab were granted five-year franchises in May 2010 by the council. Both votes were unanimous, although Morrison and Riley were not present when the Austin Cab vote occurred. The taxi drivers association at the time argued that given its concerns over the taxi fees and other issues, the term of the franchises should have been much shorter than five years.

The council’s response to the drivers’ concerns was to pass a resolution ordering the city’s staff to develop recommendations on a variety of issues involving taxis. In September, city staffers gave the council a briefing that included some immediate recommendations and items for further study.

Those recommendations included putting into the city code regulations for “low-speed electric vehicles,” a suggestion that has complicated the taxi dynamic this election season.

That proposed ordinance, which was to come before the council on April 21 , would allow the sole Austin company running those golf cart-like vehicles to potentially compete directly with taxis for short trips downtown. The company, Electric Cab of Austin, currently operates only as a shuttle contractor for hotels, rather than as a taxi service.

Two days before it was to come up, however, Shade raised concerns at a council work session about authorizing a new business while study of the overall taxi industry was ongoing. The council decided to table that matter for three to six months.

Electric Cab owner Chris Nielsen , who had flirted earlier in the year with running against Shade, claimed that she and other council members were influenced by the donations they had received from the cab executives. No, Shade said.

“It’s not the city’s job to create a special niche for one guy’s business,” she said.

Nielsen, still angry about the delay, said last week that on the May 14 election day he talked to Yellow Cab employees passing out Shade campaign fliers near the O. Henry Middle School polling place.

He said they told him they were from Houston and were paid by their company to travel to Austin and do the electioneering.

Not so, Shade said, after checking with Kargbo with Yellow Cab. Kargbo said that the Yellow Cab contingent did include employees from Houston, none of them drivers, and some nonemployees.

They were campaigning exclusively for Shade, he said.

Regarding Nielsen’s claim about the workers being on the Yellow Cab payroll during their Austin stay, Kargbo said: “That is 100 percent inaccurate. No one was paid to come up and do anything for Shade.”

With the election coming to a climax later this week, it is likely we are going to see even more money flow into the two campaigns. However, almost 12% of the money raised so far came from the taxi cab industry. It appears that of all the issues facing the city of Austin, the taxi cab debate is one of the most influential yet least talked about issues in the race. Yet the least talked about issue could be the one that decides the City Council Election for the Place 3 seat.

The amendment was written so that candidates would have been able to expunge from their record any complaint if the candidate could prove it was a mistake in good faith.  According to the bill, candidates would have 14 business days after a complaint was filed to “fix” their reports without penalty so long as there was no “intent to mislead or to misrepresent the information contained in the report.”

However, there was no limitation on how large of a donation could be dismissed and the bill would have the unintended consequence of allowing a candidate to hide a pattern of misreporting potentially embarrassing donations by claiming they were an accounting or typographical error or misunderstanding of reporting requirements.  The bill would also remove the incentives to accurately report campaign contributions and expenditures as well as reduce the Texas Ethics Commission’s revenue from fines.

If Jackson does not get a veto from Perry, he has placed an amendment on to the special session’s Fiscal Matters Senate bill (SB 1) to repeal his earlier amendment.  Although SB 1 is controversial in many respects, the new amendment is a bright spot for proponents of campaign finance reform. The amendment would have been destructive to the campaign process and allowed candidates a loophole in which to exploit. Campaign finance laws need to be reformed but not in this way. Sen. Jackson did well to fix his mistake with his amendment in the special session and should be recognized for owning up to it.

The donation also caused the Pop Star Lady Gaga to end her relationship with Target and urged them to donate to pro-gay rights charities.

Chairman, President and CEO Gregg Steinhafel said in the shareholder meeting that Target “learned a lot last year” and that they “welcome everybody”.  Target Corp. has changed their policy and process on political donations, but some argue that the process has not helped the situation but rather made it less transparent.

Target has been trading at 52 week lows, but the causes are up for debate. The executives of Target point towards their inability to convince consumers to spend on items other than food and other staples. Steinhafel said that shoppers are “still very thoughtful about spending” during these difficult economic times. Although Steinhafel stated in the shareholders meeting that Target is going to remain “neutral” on gay rights as well as “other social issues that have polarizing points of view”, the damage has been done and might continue. The best way to avoid a controversy like this is, as Mike Dean executive director of Common Cause in Minneapolis stated in a newspaper article, to “refrain from political spending”. Citizens United opened the door for unlimited amounts of campaign spending by corporations which can be detrimental to a democratic system. Perhaps the best defense at this point is to boycott those businesses that participate in the process.

However, not everyone is as much of a fan of the proposed order as Reich. Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling was scheduled to attend a breakfast yesterday morning hosted by a PAC fro Fluor which is a major government contractor. Last week Rep. Hensarling voted in favor of an amendment to counteract President Obama’s executive order. Adam Smith of Public Campaign wrote on his website ” I wonder if Hensarling discussed his concern about the influence of money in our political process with the government contractor lobbyists handing him money this morning.”

In addition, this cycle has left many Congressional staffers feeling as though Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has changed the game in Congress as showed in a recent Public Citizen survey. Furthermore, as Stephen Colbert demonstrated, the Citizens United ruling made it much easier for unlimited funds to flow into politics.

Colbert proves just how dangerous the Supreme Court ruling can become. He jokes about the implications, but in Texas it is very real. In Texas, individuals as well as corporations have always had a major impact in elections and legislation. Most recently, a new Texans for Public Justice report shows that Bob Perry along with two conservative PAC’s gave substantial amounts of money to opponents of the new Home Owner Association Reform bill. Anther report by Texans for Public Justice shows that the Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons gave money to more than 61 percent of the Texas House of Representatives. Of that group, 83 percent of them voted in favor of the out-of-state nuclear waste bill. Public Citizen advocates for the government to serve the voters and not corporate special interests such as Bob Perry’s Homes or Harold Simmons‘ corporations. Public Citizen Texas fights for clean and fair elections through public financing, not corporate funded elections. We also want greater accountability in government. The public should know where political contributions are coming from, especially when corporations are involved. Because as Stephen Colbert said that the American Dream is about people working hard enough so “someday they can go on to create a legal entity which can then collect unlimited funds [for elections].”

Related articles

• Stephen Colbert To FEC: I Don’t Want To Be The ‘Chump’ Without Unlimited Corporate Cash (VIDEO) (alternet.org)
• Stephen Colbert Super PAC Hits A Snag (abcnews.go.com)

Joe Shirley Jr., President of the Navajo Nation

I’m not (by any stretch of the imagination) an expert on Native American affairs, but there is an interesting and rather sad drama playing out in the Navajo Nation (a semi-autonomous Native American homeland covering parts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico). The Nation also encompasses the Hopi Reservation, represented by the Hopi Tribal Council. Here is a USA Today article of September 30, 2009, in part:

PHOENIX — The president of the Navajo Nation joined other Native American leaders this week in assailing environmentalists who have sought to block or shut down coal-fired power plants that provide vital jobs and revenue to tribes in northern Arizona.

“These are individuals and groups who claim to have put the welfare of fish and insects above the survival of the Navajo people when in fact their only goal is to stop the use of coal in the U.S. and the Navajo Nation,” said Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., who presides over America’s largest Indian reservation, which sprawls over three states and claims a population of about 250,000.

Shirley’s remarks came Wednesday after the Hopi Nation‘s Tribal Council sent a message Monday to the Sierra Club and a handful of other environmental groups: Stay off the reservation.”

Shirley also said in another statement: “Environmentalists are good at identifying problems but poor at identifying feasible solutions. Most often they don’t try to work with us but against us, giving aid and comfort to those opposed to the sovereign decision-making of tribes.” This is an interesting statement in light of the fact that environmental groups worked together with the Hopi Tribe in opposing the proposed uranium mine near the Grand Canyon and securing protection for the desert nesting bald eagle, among other issues.

Nonetheless, for a community with unemployment at 42% (Data from 2000) and poverty at 43%, economic concerns must obviously be a top priority, as Joe Shirley Jr. makes clear. But it is sad when leaders resort to vilifying those who have been working for and with the Hopi (and Navajo) people all along. In the case of the Hopi people it is even more ironic. Vernon Masayesva, executive director of Black Mesa Trust and former Hopi Chairman: “To be a Hopi is to be a conservationist, a caretaker and a steward of planet earth. So, by implication, the Council has banned all Hopi people from their land.”  If, for the past forty years, coal has been such a major constituent of the economic lifeblood of the Nation, yet economic problems still abound, what’s the catch?

All of this leads to the question: why the sudden opposition?

Location of the Navajo Nation

As is quite often the case, the answer could lie in the depths of a corporation – in this case Peabody Coal, a mining company which already has major interests within the Navajo Nation. Might Peabody Coal be putting pressure on the Hopi Tribal Council to carry out the agenda of coal within the region? Masayesva thinks so: “The real story on Hopiland, that is yet to be revealed, is the take-over of the government by pro-Peabody legislators with the support of their legal counsel . . . and the ensuing corruption and abuse of power by an illegally constituted Council.” Funnily enough, this isn’t the first instance of something like this happening. You can read about Peabody’s previous efforts here.

President Joe Shirley Jr. and the Hopi Tribal Council must each look beyond the quick-fixes and easy-money offered by coal, especially when these are to the detriment of their people, heritage, and land. Clean and renewable energy solutions are becoming increasingly viable, and will be able to provide green jobs and revenue to be kept by the Navajo and Hopi. In fact, in June this year the Navajo Nation Council passed the Navajo Green Commission Act, which will help to establish green jobs across the Navajo Nation. Why not take this path, and develop it fully? Sole dependence on outside companies, such as Peabody Coal, will allow the economic success of the region to be dictated by these outside sources, and they might not always have the best interests of the Navajo and Hopi at heart.

J Baker.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

There is a disturbing trend emerging in Texas. A once successful consumer-oriented program is floundering because of a deficit of perspective behind the dais at the PUC.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas proposed adopting an update to the state’s energy efficiency program that would cap the amount of money utilities could spend on programs that reduce the energy bills for homes and businesses.

Under the rule, utility expenditures on energy efficiency would be limited to one tenth of one cent per kilowatt-hour. That’s $0.001, which would amount to around a dollar a month for the average home. It’s worth pointing out that there are no cost caps for other energy resources, just the cheapest one.

This bears repeating: the PUC does not want utilities to spend more money to fund programs that make Texas homes more energy efficient and reduce their utility bills.

During today’s hearing, it was abundantly clear that Governor Perry’s appointees to the commission have folded to industry pressure and adopted the bizarre world view that energy efficiency costs consumers too much money. As evidence, in addition to only considering utility industry estimates on the cost of future efficiency resources, they frequently alluded to a report released this week by the conservative and industry-friendly Texas Public Policy Foundation which made unsubstantiated claims that the consumer benefits of energy efficiency programs could not only be less than currently estimated, but actually negative (page 3). (A more detailed critique of their report is coming).

At a workshop earlier this month, the commissioners only allowed industry representatives to present information. No consumer advocates, environmental groups, no academics were allowed to present and even the comments by ACEEE seem to have been ignored.

It’s now time for the Legislature to be the grownups in the room when they convene in January. The commissioners mentioned several times the need for direction from the Lege. Maybe that’s because legislators are in a better position to put energy efficiency costs and benefits into context-recognizing that the vast majority of energy costs and risks to consumers and businesses come from over-dependence on coal, natural gas, and nukes. After all, the slice of the utility bill pie that energy efficiency takes up is minuscule compared to the other components that make up a customer’s energy bill. If the Commissioners were truly concerned about consumer cost burden, shouldn’t they pay attention to the other 99% of the utility bill?

Commissioner Nelson’s comments were particularly disturbing. She said the proposed maximum cost caps were too high ($1.30/month). At one point she questioned the need for energy efficiency mandates at all. There was also an awkward exchange between commissioners where she implied that climate change does not exist (along the “we had a mild summer, therefore.” line of thinking).

A few more brief comments on the rationales used today:

Nelson sited low natural gas prices and the subsequent dip in utility bills as a reason why Texas could do without an energy efficiency goal, despite the fact that energy efficiency is still cheaper than gas AND the fact that efficiency inherently puts downward pressure on bills regardless of other energy prices.

The best time to increase energy efficiency goals is when energy prices are low as a way to ensure they stay low-not to wait until they skyrocket again.

Nelson also again framed the efforts of the 81^st Legislature curiously. Despite the fact that both houses passed Senator Troy Fraser’s SB 546 which would have increased the state efficiency goal, she said the Lege “declined” the opportunity to pass updating the efficiency goal. Anyone who was following this bill last session should take issue with that. The Senate passed SB 546 30-0. The House passed it 97-45. Her choice of words implies that the Lege intentionally did not want to pass an increase in the energy efficiency goal. Evidence exists to the contrary. Perhaps she needs to have a discussion with the Senator on the meaning of legislative intent.

What the PUC will adopt is not what the Lege intended.

Even Arizona just passed a efficiency bill that makes this effort look unispiring to say the least. “The Arizona Energy Efficiency Standard established in the Rule will achieve 22 percent energy savings in 2020 as a percent of retail sales from energy efficiency, with a credit of up to 2 percent for demand response.  This will put in place one of the strongest energy efficiency standards in the country.”

Contact your Senator and Representative and ask them to pass a strong energy efficiency bill!

Wonky background:

When adopted (around December of this year), Texas will have the following efficiency goals:

2010: 20% of the growth in demand (no change from 2009, states are now setting up programs to reducing the total amount of energy used rather than new growth)

2011: 20%

2012: 25%

2013: 30%

Cost caps would be based on consumer rates:

• Residential: $0.001/kWh, or $1.30 per month for years 2011-12; 2013 and beyond it would be increased to $0.0012/kwh or $1.60.
• Commercial: $0.0005/kwh for 2011-12; 2013 and thereafter: $0.00075/kwh

If you want to completely wonk out on a Friday afternoon, you can find the proposal here.

The archived video of today’s meeting can be found here. Fast forward about 3 hours and 15 minutes to get to the energy efficiency discussion. (They took it up about 12:46pm).

Having passed House Bill 3353 (known as the “green fee bill,” it was one of the few green bills passed this session and made into law) in the 2009 Texas Legislative Session, the student leaders that comprise the ReEnergize Texas coalition knew they had much work ahead of them. The legislation gave campuses administrators legislative approval to implement “environmental service fees” of up to $5 per semester if the student body voted for such a fee on that campus. But campaigns on individual campuses still had to be waged.

And so it is that ReEnergize Texas finds itself running or assisting green fee campaigns at 7 Texas colleges. And of all the green fund campaigns we’re involved with this semester, Texas A&M’s has proven the most challenging so far. The group has amassed over 1,600 members on its Facebook group and has the blessing of administrators, but still faces a serious challenge organized by a group know as Texas Aggie Conservatives (might be more relevant to visit the Facebook page).

In response to the sometimes vitriolic and often misleading criticisms leveled at the Aggie Green Fund, pro-green-fund group members put together this video to explain why the fund is needed and how it will benefit the campus:

So make sure you visit their Facebook group and leave them a friendly comment. These students are keeping it positive and moving forward with their vision against an outspoken minority that is willfully misleading the student body about both its motives and the impacts of the green fund. They deserve a great deal of gratitude for defending sustainability on the front-lines.

In a related story, students at Rice University recently passed their own green fee of $9 per year without the help of the statewide coalition (in fact, we only heard about it a couple days before the vote). It was a huge and early victory for the green fund movement and serves as an inspiration to the 7 Texas campuses still pursuing a fee, and to the campaigns taking root in Florida this year.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

‘Roll Beyond Coal’ Tours Texas

By Geena Wardaki

It’s not often that you lug a 20-foot-tall inflatable “coal plant” around Texas to protest dirty coal-fueled power plants.

But that’s exactly what Public Citizen and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club did in September.

The “coal plant” served as a powerful image that drove home the message to “clean up dirty power plants now,” which the groups delivered to Texas residents during the “Roll Beyond Coal” tour.

The groups visited Texas communities where proposed coal plants would be built and met with local grassroots and citizen organizations.

The two-week tour, which was part of Public Citizen’s Coal Block campaign, stopped in Waco, Dallas, Abilene, College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City, Houston and Austin. Texas residents turned out in crowds of varying sizes to show their support and protest with the tour at each stop.

“The biggest cities actually had the smallest response,” said Ryan Rittenhouse, Coal Block campaign director for Public Citizen’s Texas office. “The largest turnouts were from grassroots movements where the issue is more local, smaller towns where proposed coal plants would be built and whose residents would be directly affected.”

Area demonstrators included members of T.P.O.W.E.R. (Texans Protecting Our Water Environment and Resources) from Waco, the No Coal Coalition from Bay City, the Multi-County Coalition from Sweetwater and the Clean Economy Coalition from Corpus Christi.

“Roll Beyond Coal” had two main objectives: one, to show support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent finding that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) rules for granting permits to new coal plants do not comply with the federal Clean Air Act; and two, to push the EPA to stop  the TCEQ from granting any permits for or allowing the operation of any new coal-powered plants and from issuing any new air pollution permits. TCEQ currently issues “flex permits,” which allow coal plants to sometimes exceed emissions as long as they don’t go over their total emission caps for the year. Eleven coal plants are proposed or under construction in Texas, more than any other state in the country.

The “Roll Beyond Coal” tour also educated people about federal climate change legislation making its way through Congress (H.R. 2454). Concern exists that new climate change legislation will grandfather proposed or newly built plants, allowing the plants to avoid the proposed emissions standards. (Senate climate change legislation also would enable new plants to be evade emission control standards for a decade.)

Public Citizen told residents to call and write Texas Sens. John Cornyn (R) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), and urge them to vote against the grandfathering of new coal plants in the climate change legislation. (Visit www.coalblock.org to see how you can e-mail these senators, too.)

“The ‘Roll Beyond Coal’ tour was an important and entertaining way to reach out to Texas residents and get them engaged and involved in blocking dirty coal power plants,” Rittenhouse said.

“Now, people need to let their lawmakers know that coal plants should not get special treatment in any climate change legislation.”

Geena Wardaki is a Public Citizen communications intern.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

During his campaign, President Obama said “change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” As individuals, we need to internalize this, and act on it. This is the last blog in the Green-up Your Life! series, a series dedicated to the many ways we, as individuals, can reduce climate change.

Unfortunately, the environmentally-friendly changes to our daily lives is just the first step to securing a livable planet for future generations.  In addition, we must demand that our government adopt laws to protect our planet.  While the science behind climate change is well established, our leaders will not act until we make them.  The importance of government action to combat climate change was made clear in a recent Washington Post op-ed by Mike Tidwell titled To really save the planet, stop going green.  In the op-ed, Tidwell argues that “going green” is tricking many people into actually thinking that there is major change happening, when in reality, only a very small percentage of people buy compact florescent light bulbs and fuel efficient cars, have a compost pile, and eat vegetarian diets, etc.  “Going green”, in effect, is creating a false impression of change, which is actually hindering the real process of change.  If we care, we should adopt a “green” lifestyle and incorporate the above activities into our lives – but doing all of these individual things does not dismiss us from taking political action to demand large-scale change.

What does this mean for us?  It means learning the details about climate change legislation, and calling/writing/visiting our state and federal representatives to demand that they take action.  Not sure what to ask for?  Here are a few things to get you started:

•    A bill that achieves emissions cuts of at least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95% by 2050 (right now, the Waxman-Markey Bill cuts emissions by only 4% of 1990 levels.  Unfortunately, the Waxman-Markey Bill deceptively uses 2005 levels, and thus the 17% reduction in emissions seems to be near the scientific requirements.  But, as Congress well understands, the rest of the international community and climate scientists use 1990 levels as their base.  Thus, the 17% emissions cut at 2005 levels turns out to be only 4% of 1990 levels, a number far from minimum 25% necessary to save our planet.)
•    Stopping the construction of new coal plants.
•    Increasing funding for renewable energy and creating green jobs

We all have the tools and knowledge necessary to create change on a personal and political level.  The next steps are advocacy, action, and maintenance. We are facing a huge crisis, and taking only small and popular steps are not enough. Obama said it himself – we are the change that we have been waiting for.  So let’s do it!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Happy Holidays! Just saying those words is enough to evoke joyful images of families gathered in the kitchen preparing a succulent holiday meal to be enjoyed together, or excited and wide-eyed children opening gifts next to a beautifully decorated Christmas tree. When I close my eyes, I can almost taste the cinnamon-spiced hot apple cider. Yum. Unfortunately, for some of us, the holiday season also means traveling long distances to be with our loved ones; fighting the crowds at busy stores as we endlessly try to find the perfect gifts; and paying higher energy bills resulting from our holiday lights and all of our cooking.

Amidst all the holiday cheer, sometimes it is inconvenient to think about how our activities might contribute to climate change. The purpose of the Holiday Edition of Green-up Your Life! is to give easy ideas about how to have the lowest impact on the earth while still enjoying the holiday season.

Time to Travel

With all the crowds and delays, flying during the holiday season can be really frustrating. And what about those 4 to 8 hour drives? Unfortunately for many of us, flying or driving are often the only options – for now. The future, however, looks bright. President Obama is already in support of investing in the high-speed national rail service, as it would reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment. It would also create many new green-jobs, something that we desperately need to jump-start the economy. What can you do? Click here to tell your Representatives in Congress that you are in favor of appropriating government funds towards the creation of a national high-speed passenger rail system. I have to admit, there is something romantic about taking the train home for the holidays.

The Gift of Giving

Giving gifts makes us feel good; it is a way to let our loved ones know we are thinking about them; and it is a token of appreciation of being part of another person’s life. Too often, though, we get caught up in the act of giving a gift, without thinking about the repercussions. By following some simple guidelines, you can keep your gifts environmentally friendly, and socially responsible.

• Skip anything that you plug in, or that requires batteries.
• Buy from local vendors when you can. I can think of many gift ideas, from hats and scarves, to food, to jewelry, to artwork, that you can buy from an artisan in your own community.
• Think outside the box: Give a gym membership, a haircut, a massage, or tickets to a game or a concert.
• Combine errands, or better yet, leave the car in a parking spot and walk from store to store.
• Skip the wrapping paper: Use an old newspaper or a paper bag instead. Same goes for a card: Unless it is a private message, write something right on what ever material you wrap the present in.

Do you need a gift for people who already have everything they could ever want? Buy them something from Oxfam. A gift such as soap, purified water, manure, seeds for a garden, a cooking stove, a bicycle, or a dozen chicks will be delivered to somebody in the world who needs it, and your friend will get a card thanking them for their contribution. This kind of gift can be more thoughtful than yet another sweater, and it is a nice way to to contribute to those in need during the holiday season.

In the kitchen and around the house

One of the best things you can do, even though it defies tradition, is to skip the meat (or at least, if possible, buy it from a local organic rancher). Why is this important? Refer back to earlier blogs in this series – Eat Less Meat, and Go Organic. While I wish more people would do this, I do recognize that not everybody will. So, thankfully there are also other, less drastic, measures we can take in the kitchen. For instance, if you are slow roasting something, there is no need to preheat the oven. Also, each time you open the oven door, the oven temperature decreases by about 25 degrees. If you have an oven light, use that instead. When your oven is on, try to fill it up by baking multiple things at once. As long as there is still room for air to circulate, your food will be just as delicious. A helpful hint for stovetop cooking is to match the size of the pan to the size of the burner. According to California’s Consumer Energy Center, using a smaller pan on a larger burner wastes 40% of the energy!

Other hints around the kitchen include only running your dishwasher when it is completely full, and if it has an energy saver mode – use it! Try to limit the amount of times you open and close the refrigerator. Each time that door opens, the fridge needs to work overtime to keep the temperature at its setting.

Do your wallet & the earth a favor...no need to go overboard!

Holiday lights outlining the frames of homes and around the tree are beautiful, and are such a classic mark of the season. They also raise energy bills and are not all that good for the environment. One thing you can do is replace old lights with LED (light emitting diode) bulbs. They are more expensive, but because they are 90% more efficient than your average light bulb, they can start saving you money within the first year of purchase, quickly making up for the upfront costs. Another thing to do is turn off the lights in the day time when it is hard to see them anyway, and put them on a timer at night, so they automatically turn off once everybody has fallen fast asleep.

Happy New Year!

With many New Year’s resolutions in the air, it is a great time to make a commitment to living a greener life. When you think about it, actions that we take during the holiday season can be taken throughout the year. We have so many things to be thankful for, not least for the earth that sustains us. With that gift, comes the responsibility of doing our part to ensure that our families can celebrate for generations to come.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

From office paper, to toilet paper, paper towels, paper coffee cups, newspapers, paper bags, magazines and catalogs, notebooks, napkins, and packaging, we cannot escape our dependency on paper products. Check out some of these crazy facts related to paper manufacturing and use:

• Deforestation causes more global warming pollution than all forms of transportation combined.  A single forest tree absorbs 26 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, an acre of trees can remove 2.4 to 5 tons of carbon dioxide per year, and there are 728 million forested acres in the United States that remove more than 1.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year.
• 50-75% of the pulp used to make toilet paper comes from old growth forests, which are valuable ecosystems and also play a huge role in absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.
• Americans consume more paper than any other country on earth. Each American, on average, uses 741 pounds of paper per year.  Furthermore, The United States is the largest market for toilet paper, and only 2% of sales are from 100% recycled toilet paper.
• In addition to contributing to the detriments of deforestation, the pulp and paper industry is the third largest industrial emitter of global warming pollution (coming in after the chemical and steel industries). To make things worse, CO2 emissions from the paper industry are expected to double by 2020.
• 36% of the average landfill is comprised of paper. Americans discard 4 million tons of office paper each year, which is enough to build a 12-foot wall from Los Angeles to New York City.
• The pulp and paper industry is the single largest industrial consumer of freshwater.

As last week’s blog recommended, there is a lot we can do to reduce our use of paper: reusing shopping bags, printing on both sides, refusing junk mail, using cloth napkins, reusing coffee cups, and by buying products with less packaging.  But, sometimes, even when we are doing all of these things, it is still easy to forget the most simple of tasks: buying recycled paper products, especially toilet paper!

Sure, it is not as fluffy – but let’s not exaggerate – the recycled stuff does the trick and it is far from sandpaper.  And, wouldn’t you rather have a future where we have curbed climate change, still have forests, and have clean water to drink?  I don’t mean to sound extreme – but that is what we are dealing with. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: as consumers we have tremendous power to change the world.  The day we no longer demand the plushy, soft, and tree-killing kind of toilet paper, the market will no longer produce it. So next time you are faced with the choice – make the earth friendly one. I’m sure your skin will forgive you. If you are having trouble taking the plunge, just think that if every household replaced just one roll (500 sheets) of virgin fiber toilet paper with a 100% recycled one, we would save 423,900 trees!

Buying recycled office paper is also important. Ask your manager to green-up the office! How much of a difference can it make? According to the Public Works Department of San Mateo County, California:

Every 20 cases of recycled paper saves 17 trees, 390 gallons of oil, 7000 gallons of water, and 4100 kwh of energy. It also eliminates 60 pounds of air-polluting emissions and saves 8 cubic feet of landfill space.

While it is not always the first thing on our minds as we strive to green-up our lives, buying recycled toilet paper is an important step.  In addition to saving old-growth forests, it gives recycled newspaper and office paper an afterlife to look forward to.  In addition to 100% recycled, also buy the brand with the highest percentage of post-consumer material and make sure the bleaching process is elemental chlorine free.  Check out one of the many buyers guides here.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

So why do we subject our leaders to this grueling and wasteful misuse of their precious time and energy? And why are we surprised when Big Money holds more sway than the Common Good and Reasoned Argument? Ultimately, we get the government we deserve- because we force our politicians to raise money this way, and so we shouldn’t be surprised when campaign “donors” think that their “donations” mean that they should get special favors or special access.  More than ever, voters feel dissillusioned and cynical about government and feel disconnected from their leaders. (And can you blame them?)

So what is the answer? Why not allow those who represent us to circumvent this whole process?  One piece of legislation designed to do this is the Fair Elections Now Act.

What is the Fair Election Now Act? This bi-partisan bill was introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Arlen Specter (PA) in the Senate, and by Representatives John Larson (D- CT) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R- NC)  in the House of Representatives. It will provide public funding for office seeking political candidates who qualify, in addition to small private donations up to $100 dollars. Also, all qualifying candidates get a reduction rate on media fees for campaigning purposes, as well as media vouchers that they can exchange for cash if they prefer.

This bill will provide an equal playing field for political candidates, as money differences will play less of a role in the campaign, and therefore provide lesser-known candidates a more fair chance to compete in political races. Public Funding has already been successfully tested in several states, and it can hopefully achieve the same success on a federal level.

Who will qualify for Public Funding? The amount of public funding that each individual candidate receives will depend on the office they are seeking or holding, but each candidate must first qualify by raising a set amount of small donations. For example, House Members running for office must receive 1,500 contributions from their state, and $50,000 altogether. All candidates must therefore prove that they have the ability to raise money for their campaign and thereby demonstrating their competitive ability in the race before they can receive public funding.

Why you should support this bill and how to help get this bill passed! Simple: the status quo is broken. Everyone understands that lobbyists and corporate institutions (PACs, bundlers, etc)  benefit from the current system where big money buys big access.

Voters will first and foremost benefit, because they can be sure their Representatives are ONLY representing them, and basing their votes on what is best for their constituents, not what makes their donors happy.  Furthermore, we will have a fair and wide range of politically qualified candidates to choose from in each election– areas that have enacted public financing, such as Maine and Arizona, have seen a more diverse group of candidates run, resulting in representation that looks more like the population.

The candidates themselves will also benefit, because they can focus more on policies that their constituents favor and their political message instead of constantly raising money for their campaign. In addition, the main contributions are increasingly coming from big donors that come with strings attached. With the Fair Election Now Act, the people have the chance to take back the power of democracy and away from corporate interests!

It is the responsibility of each citizen to ensure our freedom and democracy,and YOU can help the pass this bill for the sake of those crucial values. If you are interested in supporting this bill, you can take one easy step and click here to sign up for a petition. For more detailed information about the bill, please click here.

You can also call your member of Congress and ask them to co-sponser this bipartisan piece of legislation.  Click here to get contact info for who represents you.  As of now, six members of the Texas Congressional Delegation have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.  If you’re lucky enough to be represented by one of them, call their offices and express your thanks for standing up to Big Money interests.

Gene Green (Houston)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (Houston)

Eddie Bernice Johnson (Dallas)

Solomon Ortiz (Corpus Christi)

Silvestre Reyes (El Paso)

Lloyd Doggett (Austin)

By Harrison

The chance that Congress will pass a US climate change bill before the global summit in Copenhagen is looking increasingly slim, but that does not stop us from individually minimizing our own impact on the earth. Green-up Your Life! is all about reminding us that as individuals, we can, and should, do our part to protect our planet and combat climate change – even when our policy makers are not quite there. Reducing, Reusing, and Recycling are a big part of the things we all can do. Today’s blog is going to focus on the first two (and most important) parts of this well-known mantra: Reduce and Reuse.

In our society, where we covet big houses and new cars, where we are impressed with shiny toys and with the newest fashions, not everybody likes to hear this, but simply reducing what we buy is one of the best things we can do for the planet. In his New York Times blog Dot Earth, Andrew Revkin asks if being a “green consumer” is good enough: after all, even when corporations are selling environmentally sustainable products, they are still selling consumerism, and their primary goal is not to save the planet, but instead to get you to buy more new things.

And, generally, the more we buy – the more we waste. Think about all of the packaging and the transport associated with everything we buy! According to the EPA, between 1960 and 2007 the amount of waste each person creates has almost doubled from 2.7 to 4.6 pounds per day. Reversing this trend is crucial to the future of the earth.

If you have never seen Annie Leonard’s Story of Stuff, I highly recommend that you spend 20 minutes watching it to learn more about the processes of production and consumption within our society. By the end of the short, fun, and interactive film, you most likely will have a different view on buying things. Do you love to give gifts? Rethink how you give, and how it impacts the earth. Good alternative ideas include a gift certificate to a massage or yoga classes; tickets to a concert or football game; a batch of fresh baked cookies; a dinner out at an environmentally sustainable restaurant; renting a kayak for a day out on the water; or simply spending some time together, cooking or playing games. A study about happiness during the Christmas season, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies, has shown that:

Lower well-being occurred when spending money and receiving gifts predominated. Engaging in environmentally conscious consumption practices also predicted a happier holiday, as did being older and male. In sum, the materialistic aspects of modern Christmas celebrations may undermine well-being, while family and spiritual activities may help people to feel more satisfied.

Tommy Sheep

If all this talk about reducing sounds good to you, use the day after Thanksgiving, historically the largest shopping day in the US, to make a point. In 65 countries around the world, millions of people participate in Buy Nothing Day to demonstrate that we don’t have to buy all the newest fashions and the brightest toys just because they are endlessly marketed to us. It is actually pretty empowering to decide to ignore all the marketing schemes. Check out these spoof ads by Adbusters, and imagine how much less we would collectively buy if all ads were as honest as these. (There are more funny ones on their website).

True Colors of Bennetton

Buying less does not mean not buying anything at all. Just try to keep your impact low, and reuse items when you can. Have you checked out your neighborhood thrift store or consignment shop? Most have clothes, toys, household items, shoes, and books. Check it out – you may be surprised. There are about 6,000 reuse centers around the US, ranging from specialty stores to Goodwill. Another alternative is to buy lightly used items on Craiglist or ebay. You can’t really go wrong when you are saving money and helping to preserve the earth’s resources.

Even if we cut down on what we buy, of course we will all still buy many things. Reducing and reusing isn’t just about less consumerism and buying used items. It is also about bringing reusable bags to a store, drinking from a reusable coffee cup or water bottle, not using the mini-bottles of shampoo at hotels; reducing the amount of packaging you use by buying food in bulk, and reducing paper by printing on both sides, paying bills online and getting yourself off of unwanted mailing lists. Do you wonder what kind of impact this could have?

• If every Starbucks customer used a reusable coffee thermos, we could save 1,181,600 tons of wood, 2,040,061,237 pounds of carbon dioxide, and 4,441,093,624 gallons of water every year.
• The production of plastic water bottles in the US generates more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and uses 17 million barrels of oil per year! And that is not even taking into account what happens to all those bottles once they reach the landfill. (In the U.S. more than 30 billion plastic water bottles are discarded each year. Only 15% are recycled; the rest end up in landfills, or as litter – 66 million every day.)
• According to the World Watch Institute, each year Americans throw away some 100 billion polyethylene plastic bags. (Only 0.6 percent of plastic bags are recycled.) If every shopper took just one less bag each month, this could eliminate the waste of hundreds of millions of bags each year.
• Producing one ton of paper requires 2-3 times its weight in trees. If the entire U.S. catalog industry switched its publications to just 10-percent recycled content paper, the savings in wood alone would be enough to stretch a 1.8-meter-high fence across the United States seven times.

These facts clearly show that we can all make a difference by changing our habits – even just a bit. It is unrealistic to think that we will all stop buying things, but if we reduce what we do buy, buy used items when we can, and try to reduce the negative side effects of consumerism by choosing products with less packaging and bringing our own shopping bags, it is a step in the right direction. We need to start thinking before we make purchases and stop buying things we don’t need, which is a tough thing to do in a society where people living in cities are exposed up to 5000 advertisements a day. It is time to show those companies that in order to protect our planet, we will not give in so easy!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

After receiving communications from the office of Senator Carlos Uresti, we realize that there was an inaccuracy in the original form of this post. Senator Uresti has apparently never taken a charter flight from Austin to San Antonio, rather, he has taken flights from Austin to other areas in his sizeable district, and then flew back to San Antonio. We apologize for any misinformation and hope that this clarification sheds further light on the matter.

DOUBLE UPDATED!!!!

According to the Dallas Morning News, Rick Perry was living it up in Vegas, and once again taxpayers picked up the tab for his security detail. The rest of the party was paid for by political donations and private contributions:

They say that what happens in Las Vegas stays there, but for Rick Perry, not all of it has.

The governor’s Oct. 24 political trip to Las Vegas to meet with Brian Sandoval, a Republican candidate for Nevada governor, included a bachelor party for Perry’s son, Griffin, spokesman Mark Miner conceded Thursday.

He initially declined to call it a bachelor’s party, saying he would describe it more as a dinner. He confirmed, though, that it was a celebration of Griffin Perry’s upcoming nuptials joined by a number of his male friends.

…

The governor used a combination of money from his political donors and the Republican Governors Association to pay for his Vegas trip. It’s illegal to use campaign funds for personal travel, but Perry has a history of combining business with pleasure trips so that political entities will pick up the tab.

…Taxpayers do not pay for such travel by the governor or his family, but his security detail is funded by the state. Department of Public Safety officials would not say Wednesday how much that cost.

The Las Vegas meeting with Sandoval might not have been that pressing, as it turned out. The former U.S. district judge and Nevada attorney general came to Austin a little more than three weeks later to attend a Republican Governors Association meeting hosted by Perry.

Perry has been a leader of the RGA, which raises millions of dollars to boost the campaigns of Republican governor candidates.

On the Saturday of the Vegas trip, Perry stayed at the ritzy Palazzo casino and resort where the cheapest rooms go for $239.

Original post:

Texas Representatives, Senators, and other statewide elected officials, both locally and nationally, receive reimbursements for their on-the-job travels. They travel quite frequently to conduct business that benefits their constituents. Or at least that is what we hope they do.

Some representatives take advantage of the tax-payers’ money by choosing to stay in fancy hotels while traveling and use charter or private planes to get to their destination. Several representatives use campaign money and funding from other sources to pay for their trips across the country and around the world. But reports obtained by Texas Watchdog show the details of travel expenses that Senators billed to the state, and the report reveals spending that is, if not unnecessary, definately unnerving in some cases.  They report:

A $3,000, seven-day junket in Maui, staying at a resort boasting a spa that “sets a new standard for head-to-toe pampering in paradise.”

Overnight stays at a Ritz-Carlton in New York, a luxury hotel on Manhattan’s waterfront.

Charter plane trips within Texas for as much as $5,100 a pop.

State senators spent taxpayer money on these travel expenses. And they’re all perfectly within the rules regulating Senate travel — rules the senators write themselves.

The bills range from daily stipend claims and car mileage reimbursement to flights and hotel stays for conferences in Chicago, Washington and New Orleans. The expense reports, receipts and bills from Jan. 1, 2008 to May 1, 2009 also reveal the extent to which senators used private and charter planes to get around. Click here to see a searchable database of all the expenses, which was requested under the Texas Public Information Act.

Senator Mario Gallegos from Houston spent tax-payers’ money to pay for a trip to Hawaii for a conference at which he was a presenter. Gallegos brought his wife and son and stayed in a hotel that boasted of their opulance and ability to pamper: a portion of a hotel bill (paid for by private money, not by the state) attests to the fact that someone  . Although he did not ask for reimbursements for his family’s travel expenses, he requested the amount of $1,679.58 for the hotel room expenses. The total hotel bill was $1,919.27. This begs the question of whether this was 100% state business or at least partially family outing, and to make matters worse in Gallegos’ case, he was the only legislator attending the conference that traveled and stayed there on the expense of tax payers, while Troy Fraser, Joe Driver, Larry Taylor and Burt Solomons all had the trip paid for by private donations from those putting on the conference as speakers’ honoraria, or used campaign funds.

In addition, some senators use private planes, state planes, and charter planes to conduct business. Texas senators – in large part Senator Robert Duncan, Senator Carlos Uresti and Senator John Carona – spent over $86,000 using these methods to travel over the period of a year and a half.

A spokesperson for Uresti claims that the size of his district and the lack of airline services in specific areas require him to use non-commercial flights (a reasonable explanation). However, Senator Uresti also used charter flights to travel from Austin to other areas in his district and back to San Antonio, and Senator Carona used his private plane to fly between Austin, Dallas, El Paso and Houston. All these cities have frequent commercial flights for a much cheaper reimbursement price than private or charter planes.

The expensive travel arrangements by Texas Elected Officials translate to the national level as well. Texas representatives and senators spend more taxpayer’s money on travel than any other state representatives. The Texas representatives in DC have used $91,000 in past 12 months on travel expenses, including travels to foreign countries. All in all, the whole House spent 7000 days over the period of 9 months on domestic and international travel. The cost of this travel? An estimated total of 9 million dollars.

Governor Rick Perry also billed the tax-payers for thousands of dollars for an August trip to Israel with his wife, friends and public officials.

"Nice hotel, guv'nuh!"

While Governor Perry’s stay at one of the most posh hotels in the world, King David, was covered by the Doheny Global Group, a private donor, (raising eyebrows on its own) he billed the state for the cost of his bodyguards’ stay.  And the cost of just the hotel stay for security? $17,000. In addition to the stay, security costs included expenses for the flight, food, and overtime. All in all, the total sum spent on security for this one trip to Israel was over $60,000.  While we certainly understand that Israel is not the safest place in the world and see the need for security, taxpayers have the right to come to their own conclusions about the cost/benefit analysis of such a big pricetag.

The rules on reimbursement for travel expenses are pretty loose (and, we should emphasize, are written by the Legislature themselves), but each Senator must provide a legitimate reason for using private or charter planes. These reasons include a time-crunches, a cheaper option than commercial travel expenses, and the lack of commercial flights to their destination. However, since time-crunch is not easily defined, Senators sometimes choose to use charter or private planes to maximize their time efficiency instead of maximizing the utility of taxpayers’ money. Perhaps each Senator’s expenses are not outrageous, but all unnecessary spending adds up over the span of a year. This money can be used in the communities of their constituents, or for local programs.

So why do they get away with this superfluous spending? Most citizens do not look into reports of each Congressman’s travel expenses, but trust them to spend tax payer’s money appropriately. Congressmen admit they hardly ever receive questions from their constituency about travel expenses.

It is understood, of course, that our Representatives and Senators, etc must travel to conduct business and to form diplomatic relations and push policy agendas. The issue at hand is whether they are eschewing nice amenities at their destination and the methods of transportation on the tax payer’s dime. We are by no means saying that our Representatives have to stay at econo motels and take red-eye flights in order to conduct public business. Further muddying the waters are the different standards and methods in place. Some trips are paid for out of personal and campaign funds, but some spend more taxpayers’ money.

By Harrison

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Las Brisas Energy Center, a proposed pet coke power plant, is still in the midst of a protracted permitting process which most recently has taken the form of a state hearing. Opponents have claimed that projected pollution from the proposed plant has been under-estimated by engineers. Testimony ended in the hearing last Thursday, and closing statements have been ordered by January 22. At this time, the two judges, Craig Bennett and Tommy Broyles, will have 60 days to issue a recommendation to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which will ultimately make the final decision. The hearing ended with testimony from Joseph Kupper, an engineer, who was not able to confirm his calculations concerning the particulate matter projected to come from the plant.

Las Brisas might be seen as one battle in the conflict which has been escalating between the EPA and the current Texas air permitting program.

Dr Al Armendariz was scheduled to give testimony in this hearing on November 6^th; however, he did not appear due to his recent appointment as Regional EPA Administrator. Dr Armendariz was appointed by Lisa Jackson just the day before. He most recently was a faculty member at Southern Methodist University in the Environmental/Civil Engineering department and has been an outspoken critic of past EPA oversight in Texas.

Dr Al Armendariz

Now, as concerned citizens, Dr Armendariz claims we should worry that “Texas has allowed big utilities and industry to operate any way they want to for decades.” We hope for the best as Dr Armendariz takes on this job with the EPA, which he is already getting on with – some say that by the end of the month the EPA will most likely “declare that Texas’ air permitting program lacks adequate public participation and transparency.”

The EPA sees three areas in which Texas fails to meet standards:

1) Public participation and transparency, which do not adhere to Clean Air Act regulations.

2) Flexible air permits given to many industrial operations (including the Fayette power plant).

3) Greenhouse gas emissions, recently brought into regulation under the Clean Air Act.

So best of luck, Dr Armendariz. If we let the numbers, facts and models speak for themselves, Texas could certainly be a cleaner place for all.

J Baker

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.