Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Campaign Finance’ Category

Joe Barton has Apologizer’s Remorse

Posted in Campaign Finance, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 18, 2010 |

So he’s sorry he was sorry. Joe Barton, District 6 Congressman, apologized yesterday for his publicity stunt of an apology to BP where he equated the $20 billion aid fund to a shakedown. He claimed that his comments over being ashamed of the White House were misconstructed, as in constructed badly, kinda like that leaky oil well huh there Joey? *pause for laughter*

Republicans and Democrats immediately condemned Barton for his remarks and Representative Jeff Miller (R-Florida) called for Barton to resign as the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. When asked whether he planned to stay put on the committee, Barton responded:

“Damn straight.”

It’s clear that he was wrong in saying what he said, but what exactly inspired this self righteous act of disregard for the victims of the BP oil spill? Cash money you silly goose. Duh! Barton agrees that BP should be held responsible for their “bad accident” but only if it doesn’t involve funding aid to repair the lives and economy it has destroyed. Of the top 20 ranking industries contributing to Joe Barton’s campaign, oil and gas rank #2 at a grand total of $100,470.

As a matter of fact, October 15, 2010 marks the 7th Annual Barton Family Fishing Trip in beautiful Islamorada, Florida (that means purple island by the way). Current oil trajectory maps show that Islamorada will not be affected by the oil spill wait for it…YET. I guess we’ll just have to see if this party and the Gulf of Mexico’s tourist industry is still on in a few months.

For those of you who just won’t accept that Barton’s apology was fueled by campaign contributions there is another possibility. After all BP is a British based company with its headquarters located in London. Many wonderful things have hopped the pond and made life in the United States a little bit better. Maybe Joe Barton apologized to BP because he was afraid of incurring their wrath and in a vengeance driven rampage BP would snatch those wonderful things away. Because I don’t know about you but I love Harry Potter, and the Rolling Stones and The Office so we should listen carefully to how sorry BP actually is before we start holding them accountable for the safety and construction oversights that caused this tragedy:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAnsA96JK6Y]

###

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 and we’re not sorry about it.

Read Full Post »

Texas’ Political Culture Protects ‘Economic’ Interest Over Environment

Posted in Campaign Finance, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, green jobs, Renewables, TCEQ, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , on June 7, 2010 |

It was a bit surprising that the EPA finally has taken a stand against the TCEQ’s practices of giving “flexible permits.” Prominent Texas politicians including the governor criticized the action taken by the EPA and once again, Gov Perry used a very important local issue to launch his attacks on the Federal government as part of his re-election campaign. “I don’t understand the federal response of coming in to the state that should be the poster child, should be the model for this country,” Perry said last week at a news conference. He was also quoted by the Houston Press saying, “Last week, the federal government sent the very clear message that it seeks to destroy Texas’s successful clean air program and threaten tens of thousands of good Texas jobs in the process.”  Perry’s claims that our air permitting program is successful is equally as dubious as his claims that we are the poster child for clean air.

Perry’s comments came at the same Texas Congress-members criticized Obama’s decision to issue a moratorium on deep-water drilling for a period that can take longer than six months. Some Congress members, who rank among the highest contribution receivers from the oil and energy industry in general, mentioned that jobs will be affected if such regulation was to take place, “”It’s exactly the wrong decision,” said Joe Barton, a Republican from Arlington, “It’s going to raise unemployment, and it’s going to raise oil prices.”

One must question the sincerity of such comments and whether they truly are accurate or not. The Dallas Morning News in an articled called “Texans in Congress say drilling support not tied to campaign donations” showed records that were obtained from Center for Responsive Politics that show how many contributions were received by Texas Congressmen:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO TEXANS IN CONGRESS

SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics

A look at oil industry donations to members of Congress from Texas:
Member Oil/gas industry donations Rank*
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison $2.1 million 1
Sen. John Cornyn $1.6 million 3
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington $1.4 million 1
Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland $651,718 1
Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas $642,864 2
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth $612,807 1
Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall $529,468 3
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands $445,697 1
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock $440,772 1
Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston $423,561 1
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco $409,698 9
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Plano $393,700 3
Rep. Lamar Smith , R-San Antonio $391,147 2
Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston $374,113 5
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon $351,480 1
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler $257,063 3
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas $232,650 10
Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi $220,432 2
Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land $216,300 1
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble $208,450 3
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin $207,734 6
Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville $195,246 3
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson $178,632 17
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston $173,525 6
Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock $164,150 5
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo $157,350 4
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio $143,500 7
Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell $139,750 1
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, D-Mercedes $98,084 9
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio $96,500 13
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso $83,350 12
Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin $51,730 n/a
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas $32,875 n/a
Rep. Al Green, D-Houston $26,400 13
NOTE: Tally includes donations from political action committees and individuals starting in 1989, for the lawmaker’s first year in office if later than 1989.
* Rank indicates where the oil industry ranked among the top industries to donate to a lawmaker. N/A means the oil industry wasn’t among the top 20 givers to that lawmaker.

***

These numbers are staggering and if you want to bet that those massive contributions don’t alter or affect the decisions of those politicians, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you. (more…)

Read Full Post »

TCEQ Commissioners want Tax Breaks for Polluters, Tax Increases for Neighborhoods Near Refinery

Posted in Campaign Finance, Energy, Good Government, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , on March 26, 2010 |

An eye opening story from KHOU earlier this week gave more insight into what’s the matter at TCEQ.  It’s worth your 5 minutes to watch the entire thing but here are the highlights:

Valero installed a pollution scrubber to create lower sulphur fuels in one of their Houston refineries.  The problem? According to TCEQ staff, the scrubbers actually create MORE local pollution, and to add insult to injury, the vast majority of the lower polluting fuel gets sold in California and New Jersey.

But Valero still wants a tax break specially designed for technology that lowers LOCAL pollution for installing this scrubber.  Because the tax cut would be retroactive, this would mean Houston area taxpayers would be on the hook to make up the deficit.  That means either a tax hike or layoffs for teachers, firefighters, and police. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Voters steamed at Supreme Court over Citizens United

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , on February 11, 2010 |

Where are the torches and pitchforks when we need them? (Or the tar and feathers?)  According to a new poll released today, voters by a margin of 2 to 1 disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v FEC.

LOLCats depiction of who benefits from Supreme Court ruling

Other big results?

Asked if special interests have too much influence, 74 percent of respondents said yes. Asked if members of Congress are “controlled by” the groups and people who finance their political campaigns, a whopping 79 percent said yes.

Only 24 percent of the voters said ordinary citizens can still influence politicians, and just 18 percent agreed with the notion that lawmakers listen to voters more than to their financial backers.

Voters also issued a harsh assessment of President Barack Obama’s promises to change Washington and limit the influence of special interests.

A majority — 51 percent — now believe the clout of corporations and other special interests has increased since he took office, while only 32 percent said their influence has decreased.

***

But according to the survey, about 51 percent of Republicans said they opposed the court decision, while 37 percent favored it. The ratio was even more lopsided among Republican voters who backed Republican candidates in 2008. Among those respondents, 56 percent oppose the ruling, and just 33 percent support it.

“It’s important for Republicans to see this research and hear this message,” said McKinnon (an Austin, TX-based Republican political strategist).

Among all voters, 64 percent surveyed opposed the ruling, and 27 percent approved of it.

The survey found that voters supported the Fair Elections Now Act, 62 percent to 31 percent. Among independents, support rose to 67 percent. The poll also found that voters were more likely to support a candidate who backed such reforms.

Support is also strong for a variety of other proposals introduced since the court ruling was issued last month.

A whopping 80 percent of voters back a requirement that corporations receive approval from shareholders before spending money on political activities. About 60 percent back a proposal to ban foreign-owned corporations from spending money to influence elections.

You say you want a Revolution? Go join in the fun over at www.dontgetrolled.org.  Already added your name to the hundreds of thousands of other Americans who want to stand up for our rights?  Tell your friends and family and get them signed up, too.

###

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.

Read Full Post »

Joe Barton Fact Check on Citizens United

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , on February 4, 2010 |

This morning on NPR, Congressman Joe Barton (R-Arlington/Ennis) made some statements on how the massive influx of corporate money because of the Citizens United decision might not be so bad after all.  The entire story is worth a listen, and can be found by going here to NPR’s website.

Here’s what he said, and let’s evaluate some of these claims.

“It’s not giving corporate money to the campaign committees or the candidate, it’s using their own money to say ‘Congressman Joe Barton is doing a good job’, ‘Please vote for Joe Barton in the upcoming election, paid for by…. uhhh, I don’t know… Texas Industries.'”

Barton is essentially correct.  Corporations cannot give directly to candidates or committees.  But the general rule in competitive campaigns for the last 20 or so years is that outside actors spend more money than the candidates themselves and that voters often don’t differentiate between candidate sponsored communications and outside groups running their ads. The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which Citizens United struck down key portions of, has alleviated some of that confusion in voters minds by requiring candidates to say who they are and that they approve that message.

The problem with outside money is that corporations don’t have to identify themselves when they’re running ads, except with some fine print at the bottom of a screen. You may have heard of MoveOn.org, but do you have any idea who gave them money? No, and it’s impossible to find out.  What about the very nice sounding “America’s Power” or “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices”– sounds nice until you find out they are front groups for the oil and coal lobby.  And here’s a telling foreshadowing of what this coming election season are really going to look like from Josh Harkinson:

In strident speech in Washington this morning, US Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue renewed his assault on the Obama agenda and pledged to fight the President’s allies in the 2010 elections. The Chamber will wage “the largest, most aggressive” campaign in it’s 100-year history, he said, to “highlight lawmakers and candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda, and hold accountable those who don’t.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Congressman Pete Sessions ties to indicted financier Stanford includes email saying “I love you”

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 13, 2010 |

What’s the difference between the Pete Sessions / Allen Stanford scandal and Pretty Woman?

A: Julia Roberts won’t kiss you– for any amount of money

The bubbling scandal over the “mini Madoff”, R. Allen Stanford, and the Ponzi scheme he (allegedly) engineered in his bank, Stanford Financial, continues to percolate and slime everyone he had dealings with.

Let’s briefly reset the stage, shall we? Sir R. Allen Stanford was a relatively big financier, meaning he would take your money, invest it, then give you a healthy return.  Of course, what he is accused of doing by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is “massive ongoing fraud” of investment funds worth over $8 billion.  Allegations are that Stanford would take your money, use it to pay other clients who had previously invested with him, and then take money from others and give it to you—this is what is known as a “Ponzi scheme” and is the same thing Bernie Madoff was convicted of.  But with Stanford it’s much less clear, as many of his bank accounts are hidden in notorious banking black holes in various Caribbean islands, so Stanford is not yet convicted of anything: we should continue to give him the presumption of innocence that our legal system affords him.  Ditto on the allegations that he laundered money for the Mexican Gulf Cartel or cheated on his personal and property taxes to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

However, the following are facts which are NOT in dispute.  Stanford threw money around Congress and various elections like it was water, with over $2.4 million given to various candidates from Stanford, Stanford Financial’s PAC, and its employees bundling their donations.  These donations were often given to individuals who sat on committees who would mark up a bill which would regulate financial securities and clamp down on fraud– the same fraud he is now alleged to have been perpetrating. Convenient, no? (more…)

Read Full Post »

Power to the People: The Fair Elections Now Act

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 2, 2009 |

As early as the time of Socrates, people have identified money as a corruptive influence in politics, specifically in democracies.  Elections now cost double and triple what they used to, which means more and more of our Senators’ and Representatives’ time is spent dialing for dollars.  The average member of the House of Representatives will want to raise and spend over a million dollars (that’s $1,000,000) to insure victory on Election Day.  In a competitive race, it can be much, much more than that.

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

Read Full Post »

Texas Railroad Commission Trying to Block Renewable Energy Lines to Help Big Oil

Posted in Campaign Finance, Energy, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 2, 2009 |

Statement of David Power, Deputy Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

Seemingly out of concern that competitive renewable energy will damage Big Oil’s bottom line, the Texas Railroad Commission wants to block renewable energy transmission lines that would put affordable energy from west Texas wind farms on an even playing field with the historical titans of Texas energy – oil and gas companies.

A new investment in these transmission lines would save ratepayers $2 billion a year, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent and create more than $5 billion in economic development benefits for Texas. Ratepayers, companies and organizations with an interest in seeing the further development of renewable energy and green jobs should contact the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) and tell them to deny the Railroad Commission’s request to intervene.

The Texas Legislature authorized these transmission lines in 2008 to address the lack of available transmission lines to deliver wind energy from the panhandle and west Texas to the major metropolitan areas in central Texas where demand is higher. This renewable energy helps reduce costs for ratepayers by providing abundant and inexpensive clean energy that helps offset the volatile price of natural gas.

In its filing with the PUC, the Railroad Commission inappropriately expressed concern for current and future oil and gas development in Texas. In doing so, the commission stepped outside of its regulatory role to promote the interests of Big Oil. While the commission’s stated task is “primary regulatory jurisdiction over (the) oil and natural gas industry,” in this case, it is attempting to pick winners and losers in regards to Texas’ energy future. It is also questionable whether Michael Williams, who sits on the Railroad Commission and who is currently in the running for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s U.S. Senate seat, is acting in the best interest of the public or doing favors for potential campaign contributors.

This is another example of outrageous overreaching by the Railroad Commission on behalf of the same industries it is supposed to regulate. The commission is charged with regulating the oil and gas industries, not with protecting their interests with taxpayer dollars. The Railroad Commission and Mr. Williams need to stick to their own jurisdiction, rather than making an inappropriate power play to earn favors with Big Oil.

###

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.

Read Full Post »

Rick Perry Paying Volunteers in Gubernatorial Campaign

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , on October 20, 2009 |

Do you need some extra cash? Then Rick Perry’s campaign is the place to “volunteer” these days. Governor Rick Perry of Texas is rewarding his volunteers in the governor’s race, not with the usual candidate goods or an opportunity to meet with the candidate, but with flat-out cash. Though not a common practice, paying campaign volunteers is

Rick Perry hungry for the Governors seat

Rick Perry hungry for the Governor's seat

perfectly legal, as long as all the payments are disclosed in the campaign financial reports. But is it right? Does this type of campaigning encourage people to be more concerned with earning some additional cash than with Perry’s actual political platform?

Perry pays volunteers to sign up 11 other volunteers, who then again sign up to recruit 11 more volunteers, and so forth. Of course, Perry is not guaranteed the votes of the recruits, only their word that they will vote for him. Obviously, Perry’s only goal is to recruit as many voters as possible. But he is also taking a chance by paying his volunteers, because many people will campaign for money incentives, but may not actually vote for him in the primaries. So to encourage the vote, Perry has promised more money to the recruiters who turn out actual voters on Election Day.

But this whole scenario creates a bigger problem: It is very possible that people who are not necessarily usually politically active will now campaign and/or vote for Perry only because they will profit from it, which takes us back to the days of Party Bosses. Under party bosses, people were given money, jobs and other services from politicians essentially buying their votes.

To many people, this is perhaps not a shock coming from Perry, but even the governor’s Republican opponent Kay Bailey Hutchinson has openly criticized Perry’s campaign method. Her spokeswoman Jennifer Baker states: “Typical Rick Perry arrogance, when his failed record can’t earn him support, he’ll just buy it,” adding that Hutchinson’s campaign does not offer money to volunteers.

Ultimately, the problem with paying volunteers is that the process of campaigning, and the incentive for volunteerism and even voting can quickly become more about money than ideology and the meaningful issues at hand. Money for votes, therefore, can ultimately skew the interests of the constituency that the governor will represent. People who are not necessarily usually politically involved will now campaign and vote for Perry only because they will profit from it and not for the real reasons they should be involved in politics, or cast a vote.

Mysteriously, there is no mention of these paid volunteer positions on Rick Perry’s website, but the site states that anyone who signs up as a volunteer will receive “access to inside information.”

By H. 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.

Read Full Post »

Tom Craddick Laundered Money through Jobs PAC to House Dems, Texans for Public Justice files in complaint

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , on October 5, 2009 |

Tom Craddick, the former Speaker of the Texas House and currently a Republican  incumbent Texas House Member, has given money to his favorite incumbent Democratic Representatives. So, what’s the problem? Craddick laundered the money through a PAC instead of a direct contribution. In response, Texans for Public Justice, a political advocacy group, has filed a formal complaint to the Texas Ethics Commission, claiming this is illegal.

Here’s what happened: Craddick gave $250,000 to the Texas Jobs & Opportunity Build A Secure Future PAC (Jobs PAC) on January 10, 2008, along with instructions to distribute the money to incumbent Democratic Representatives; Kevin Bailey, Dawnna Dukes, Kino Flores, and Aaron Pena. Each representative was offered $50,000. All the Representatives, except Dukes who was wary of already existing criticism about ties to Craddick from her opponent, accepted the money.
According to Texas Campaign Finance laws (Texas Election Code Chapter 253.001), contributing money through any intermediary organization without disclosing its original source is illegal. However, it probably happens more than voters will ever know, as it does not leave a paper trail back to the original contributor.

Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald says: “Tom Craddick wanted to move tens of thousands of dollars to his favorite Democrats without letting voters know. Hiding the true source of campaign funds is illegal. Craddick could have contributed the money directly and openly. Instead, he used Texas Jobs to launder his money and keep Texans in dark.” This issue, therefore, deals with more than disregarding Campaign Finance Laws; this is behavior that also leads to voter ignorance.

And here comes the rub with most campaign finance problems: it’s not necessarily the recipients who are at fault here.  Craddick, in an attempt at political payback, gave money to those who had voted for him as Speaker.  As in most cases with campaign finance laws, we walk a very fine line between bribery, kickbacks, etc and legitimate donations.  The public can’t know what was in the mind and heart of Rep Craddick, much less those of Bailey, Pena, and Flores (who, we should note, none of whom voted for Craddick’s re-election for Speaker in 2009)– BUT only by instituting a system of public financing can we be certain that our candidates are running clean and are only representing the wishes of their constituents.  I think it would be a great step forward for public confidence in elections and also rid our elected officials of the task of fundraising, something not one elected official I know claims to like.  Win-Win-Win.

Read Full Post »

The battle begins in the Supreme Court today

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2009 |

At 10 a.m. EDT today, a grave test for our democracy began. Whether you’re taking to the streets or hanging our printed poster in your window, help us show the media, the Supreme Court and Congress that citizens across the U.S. won’t stand for more corporate influence in politics. Send your photos, videos, blog posts and stories to action@citizen.org.

rollforwebYour pledges to protest have been inspiring, and we are anticipating a lot of rabble-rousing today. But our work is only just beginning. Some time before the end of the year, we expect the Supreme Court to make its decision. We hope that the justices will rule on the side of the public interest.

But if the justices decide to open the floodgates to corporate money in politics, we ask you to please be prepared for bigger and bolder action.

Beginning today, we are asking you to help us collect pledges to protest any decision that increases corporate influence in our elections. If you’re taking to the streets, please download and print our printable Pledge to Protest. If you aren’t in the streets, you can still protest by warning your network of friends, family and colleagues and asking them to pledge to protest any decision by the court that gives corporations more advantage over citizens.

Please send us photos, video and stories to action@citizen.org so we can share your outrage.

Stay tuned to hear about the protests happening across the country today and the impact you had.

Thank you for all you do!

Read Full Post »

Austin Rally Against Corporate Influence in Politics & US Supreme Court “Citizens United” Case

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on September 8, 2009 |

Austin Rally to Protest the Possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court Will Allow Corporations to Unleash Flood of Money Into Elections

Court Is Considering Sweeping Away a Century’s Worth of Campaign Finance Principles

WHAT: Rally to raise awareness about the U.S. Supreme Court re-hearing Wednesday of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court has signaled it is considering sweeping away a century-old pillar of campaign finance principles: restrictions on direct corporate financing of candidate campaigns. If that were to happen, not only would the nature of elections change fundamentally, but corporations would further crowd out voters and the public interest in policymaking on health care, climate change and other critical issues.

This rally is part of Public Citizen’s campaign to encourage citizen protests throughout the country. To learn about Public Citizen’s campaign and for more information about the case, go to www.DontGetRolled.org.

WHO: Public Citizen staff, members, activists and concerned citizens.

WHEN: 11 a.m. CDT, Wednesday, Sept. 9

WHERE: South Steps of Texas State Capitol, 1100 Congress Ave, Austin, TX

VISUALS: A parody and a protest.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: The Church of Money, Rod Blagojevich and Bill Richardson

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2009 |

UPDATE: Bill Richardson was cleared of any wrongdoing in this fund raising scandal  and we wanted to briefly comment on it and also resurrect this post, which to this day remains one of our most read blogs ever.

As I commented in response to some of your reader’s comments below, the point was never to drag Gov. Richardson through the mud.  Indeed, considering his eventual vindication, it re-emphasizes the point that if we had a system of public financing, no politician would ever face erroneous charges such as this.

Money muddies the water, both for the good public servant and the bad politician , and anyone we force to raise private campaign cash we are asking them to prostitute their opinions on the altar of political expediency.  And we get the system we deserve because of it.

Original Post: Jan 5, 2009

I’ve heard it said that churches are supposed to make bad men good and good men better.  Our campaign finance system seems to do the opposite: make good men bad and bad men worse (ie, Governors Richardson and Blagojevich, respectively).  As far back as Socrates, outside observers have noticed the corruptive influence of money on public policy.  Our public servants worshiping at the altar of campaign donations is sure path to hell for most of us.  But the fact that we force them to do so by not providing a public financing system begs the question: Are we getting what we deserve?

As Richardson withdraws his name for consideration of being Commerce Secretary, more and more details are coming out about his ethical problems.  Did he take campaign donations that changed his votes?  Possibly, or at least there’s enough of an ethical cloud there that no one can know for sure.

And that’s the problem with how we finance our campaigns.  No one can ever be truly sure that their Legislators, Representatives, Senators, Mayors, Governors, or Presidents are taking a position because of the merits of the proposals themselves, or because someone with deep pockets convinced them that’s how they should vote.  The same can be said of incoming Senatorial appointee Roland Burris.  It’s surely not his fault that Blagojevich is a slimeball, but the public just can’t be certain that he was appointed based on his merits alone and not because Blagojevich had some ulterior motive.

The only way to remove all doubt is by supporting public financing.  We can only hope during this next Congress that we see some real leadership on this issue so that We the People can know that we are, indeed, still the ones in charge of our government and not the other way around.

Read Full Post »

Energy Citizens (Corporate Employees) Say the Darndest Things at API Astroturf Event

Posted in Campaign Finance, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 20, 2009 |

Even though we were denied access, our intrepid Citizen Sarah was able to blend in with a crowd walking in and starting talking to energy company employees about climate change legislation.  You know, Energy Company Employees Can Say the Darndest Things:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gp6mVn0XWE]

Look for:

  • Global Warming Deniers!
  • People Who Have NO IDEA What is actually in the American Clean Energy & Security Act!
  • Misrepresentations about the bill–and our energy policy and energy sector– all spouted back like they got the memo of Big Oil’s talking points!
  • And…. a guy from a natural gas company who really understands what made the climate bill bad: too much special interest influence and lobbying! (irony, much?  But he does have a point….)

Read Full Post »

Why Does Big Oil Hate Our Freedom?

Posted in Campaign Finance, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 19, 2009 |

As you may have read elsewhere on our blog, we tried to attend the “Energy Citizens” rally in Houston yesterday but were turned away.

Even far-right teabaggers, brought out to the event by FreedomWorks and a promise of a free meal, weren’t allowed in, despite actually being sympatico with Big Oil’s agenda.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGSuYzg8z4]

The offending item that got one kicked out?  An American flag.  Why does Big Oil hate our freedom?


This is just the 30 second trailer– a longer, more in-depth interview with people who were not allowed in the rally will be posted in the next 24 hours.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »