Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Good Government’ Category

Texas Enterprise Fund Grantees Failed to Deliver Jobs

Posted in Good Government, tagged , , , , on November 11, 2011 |

A new Texans for Public Justice report finds that most of Governor Rick Perry’s Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) projects failed to deliver on their 2010 job promises. The study analyzes compliance reports filed by 65 companies that received $350 million to create Texas jobs in 2010.

“Governor Perry’s jobs’ stimulus program is a classic example of government waste, fraud and abuse,” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. “The Enterprise Fund has an alarming rate of defaulting on the Governor’s jobs promises.”

A summary that Governor Perry’s office published in August suggests that $440 million in taxpayer TEF grants have created 59,600 Texas jobs. Perry claimed in an October presidential debate that TEF has produced 54,600 jobs. Putting aside five TEF projects that make fraudulent job claims and a sixth project that appears to be undergoing an audit, TPJ found evidence that TEF had created 22,349 jobs by the end of 2010. That number amounts to 37 percent of the job claims made by the Governor’s Office.

Analyzing the 65 TEF projects, the new report found that:

  • 24 projects (37 percent) failed to deliver on their original 2010 job promises;
  • 17 projects (26 percent) complied with their 2010 job commitments;
  • 11 failing projects were terminated prematurely (17 percent);
  • 7 projects are troubled (11 percent), usually because they defaulted on 2010 job pledges but covered the shortfall with job credits earned by exceeding their job targets in past years;
  • 5 projects (8 percent) fraudulently claim that they created more jobs than they actually did (this category includes most of TEF’s largest grants); and
  • One project claimed “new” jobs that had hiring dates predating its TEC contract.

Click here to read the full report, Con Job: Most Enterprise Fund Grantees Failed to Deliver in 2010.

Read Full Post »

The Obama Playbook on Energy and Ethics is the worst Three Stooges episode ever

Posted in Climate Change, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, Tarsands, Water, tagged , , , , , , , , , on September 15, 2011 |

Solyndra was the pie in the face, but Keystone XL is the rake in the yard the White House needs to avoid.

Approval of controversial pipeline is bad for the environment, and bad politics, as it would offend not just environmentalists, but voters of all stripes across America’s heartland who would have the pipeline run through their backyards. It is another ethics landmine that would invite more attack from the WH’s political enemies about pay to play politics– this time because of copious amounts of Big Oil influence-peddling. 

We’ve previously talked about Solyndra. It’s not a problem with solar or of federal investment, but of questions about campaign finance and due diligence, problems which also exist in the much larger loan program for nuclear, especially when nuclear energy companies have been such big campaign backers of Obama’s.

In fact, worth reading is Brad Plummer’s Five Myths About Solyndra from the Washington Post, a great take from Climate Progress about the Solyndra timeline showing the  and this post from Blue Virginia showing there’s plenty of blame to go across the partisan aisle for this mess.

Money in politics will ALWAYS create these problems.  You can see here how a wireless company was trying to trade on their big dollar donations to get access to the White House.  This is why Obama must champion REAL campaign finance reform, specifically full disclosure of all independent expenditures and public financing options for people running for Congress.

But that is a tough legislative mountain to climb– and not one that it seems the White House has the intestinal fortitude for, given their willingness to always “compromise” (read: capitulate) to the Powers That Be. But those Powers That Be don’t Be without the steady stream of money they pour into campaign coffers, so its unlikely that Obama would rush to reform that system that has, so far at least, worked out better for him than his opponents.

So while it is unlikely Obama can avoid the ethical morass and swampland that is money for access and favors, one landmine he can avoid in approving the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring the world’s dirtiest oil from Canada to Texas.

Not only should we be seriously questioning the safety and integrity of our pipeline system after spills from as far afield as downtown Salt Lake City to Kalamazoo to Yellowstone National Park, but this graphic from the New York Times shows the large spills we’ve had all over the country just from existing pipelines. 

The other question is obviously one of addiction. If we are to take seriously the metaphor of an addiction to oil, then Keystone XL is like a new meth dealer moving in next to our heroin dealer. Climate scientist Jim Hansen has called the approval of the pipeline “game over” for the climate.

But besides a discussion of the merits, there is the question of why is this the rake in the yard Obama needs to avoid? It starts with the voters, specifically those who will be affected by this pipeline.

Today at 1:30 pm Texas time, East Texas landowners who made up the group Stop Tarsands Oil Pipelines, or STOP, held a press conference detailing their opposition to this proposed monstrosity. Among their chief complaints were that the State Department had failed to account for the current devastating Texas drought in their environmental impact study.   From STOP:

Strike 3: State Dept’s 3rd Pipeline Assessment Ignores Texas Drought

DOS puts Europe/China’s oil supply ahead of water for 12 million Texans and ag lands as wildfires burn

East Texas cattle rancher Don Williams has trimmed his herd in half, lost calves to drought, and now faces wildfires burning just 20 miles from his ranch.  Even before all of this, Williams was concerned about the impact the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would have on water supplies in the Carrizo Wilcox aquifer, which most East Texans rely on.
When he learned that the State Department, in their review of the proposed pipeline, had not even looked at what drought conditions meant for the pipeline’s safety, he was outraged.
“We need that aquifer, and that they could just ‘overlook’ what’s happened here in the last year shows we can’t trust what they’re telling us,” said Williams who also serves on the City Council in New Summerfield, a town of just over 1,000 people. “Tar sands oil isn’t like regular crude – they’ve got to pack it with heavy metals and chemicals just to thin it down enough to pump it. The first pipeline they built spilled at least a dozen times in just one year of operation.”
A report released today by an East Texas group called Stop Tarsands Oil Pipelines corroborates Williams’s story, demonstrating

Drought? What Drought?

that the historic Texas drought, which has been devastating communities and grabbing headlines all summer long, was overlooked by the US State Department in its third and purportedly final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

“Texas is burning, our firefighters have faced 300 consecutive days of wildfire,” said David Daniel, STOP’s Founder and President. “I’ve seen firsthand that a tar sands pipeline spill in Michigan is still contaminating water 14 months later, putting 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River off limits. If we had a similar spill in Texas under conditions like these where could we go for water for our homes, farms, and ranches?”
The report issued by STOP examines the implications for operating the proposed pipeline, which would push the denser and more toxic tar sands oil at higher pressures and temperatures than conventional oil pipelines, during droughts like the one currently scorching Texas. According to STOP, the impacts of a severe drought were ignored by the U.S. State Department in its review of the environmental impacts of the proposal.
STOP also documents that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has placed six TransCanada water withdrawal permit applications on hold due to drought.
“If State Department had bothered to talk to any Texans they would have realized that pumping 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude through the middle of Texas would be a grave mistake,” said Don Williams, East Texas Cattle rancher and City Councilman, New Summerfield. “We need all the water we have to keep our farms and ranches in business.”
To make matters worse, says David Daniel, the oil being delivered by this pipeline may not be intended for U.S. consumption. He points to a report by oil industry economist Philip K. Verleger, which concludes that the tar sands oil is much more likely to be exported to global markets for consumption in China and Europe.
“They’re selling this pipeline to the public as energy security, but the truth is that U.S. demand for oil has flat-lined whereas China’s demand keeps growing,” says Daniel. “Dr. Verleger is an oil industry economist who just happens to also be honest about what he sees, which is more than I can say for TransCanada after dealing with them the last couple years.”

You should visit their website at stoptarsands.org to listen to the rest of their stories. Their full study on the drought vs. the pipeline can be found here. 

Beyond that, with lobbyist ties to the White House, this makes approving the decision for the Keystone XL the biggest affirmation that pay-to-play politics and revolving door between industry and government are alive and well in Washington DC. TransCanada, the owner of the proposed pipeline, hired former Clinton campaign staffer Paul Elliot and several other Obama staffers to lobby the State Department and the White House. Is it any wonder why their analysis would overlook something so obvious as the Texas drought when they are being lobbied to get this out the door as quickly as possible?

It’s worth noting this is the third flawed FEIS that the State Department has produced. Three strikes and you’re out? Well, if there was any justice in this world, yes, as it would be obvious this is not due diligence, but pure politics and a Potemkin village of looking at impacts to local residents and their water supplies. It is a boneheaded mistake, and makes it look like the Obama administration is full of a bunch of rookies, making obvious mistakes like forgetting drought.

If Obama wants to avoid having his Presidency resemble The Three Stooges any more, he needs to clean the pie off his face from Solyndra, and don’t even go close to that rake. He can’t afford another similar self-inflicted wound, especially one that is not only so avoidable but also happens to be the right thing to do.

Now where are those three nincompoop chandelier hangers I hired?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxAk3B_zS5k]

 

 

Read Full Post »

Why the Solyndra solar bankruptcy scandal is a big deal, but not the big deal some are making of it

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Good Government, Nuclear, solar, Tarsands, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 12, 2011 |

California solar energy company Solyndra had its offices raided  last week by federal agents as part of an ongoing investigation into their bankruptcy and federal loan guarantees they’d received form the Department of Energy. Some critics have cried foul, trying to show how federal money spent on emerging technology is a waste. Others  have tried to disparage solar energy itself, trying to show the industry is not ready for prime time. In fact, these allegations couldn’t be further from the truth.

However, it does bring up important questions about the Obama administration, ethics, and the influence of campaign contributions. This is entirely a self-inflicted wound, a bone-headed mistake if not an ethical problem, and is the type of landmine the White House needs to avoid. There is another, similar trap they need to avoid touching in the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, where Big Oil’s big money tendrils and the revolving door are even more frightening than those from Solyndra.

The first charge against Solyndra is the wastefulness of the federal loan guarantees that it received and the loan guarantee program in general.  Well, if solar was the only industry getting this aid, that might be something. But given the incredibly large amounts given in federal subsidies to fossil fuels compared to solar, that is not the case. Indeed, direct subsidies for nuclear in recent energy legislation adds up to over 13 billion (that’s with a b, kids) and recent loan guarantees for nuclear construction are over $60 billion, $18 billion of which have already been allocated in Georgia.  This amounts to a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry, especially since the CBO estimates those loans will have a 50% default rate.

Other critics have gone after Solyndra because they say solar isn’t ready for prime time– while, in fact, it shows the opposite. Solyndra was pioneering a new method of making photovoltaic cells and got buried under the onslaught of cheap solar imports from China.  Their process, which you can see below, courtesy BusinessWire, is very different from traditional photvoltaic arrays.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1GODzk0bgg]

Their technology just didn’t get cheap quickly enough compared to traditional PV manufacturing, largely from Chinese imports. But in the silver lining to that otherwise not as nice cloud, those same cheap Chinese imports have meant a huge boon to American manufacturing who provide many of the materials and heavy equipment needed to manufacture PV.

Meanwhile, because of that change, solar has reached grid parity in terms of its costs.  Grid parity means that the cost of producing electricity through a pv cell is less than or equal to the average cost of electricity.  Other companies are making huge solar breakthroughs. Solyndra, unfortunately, was not one of them. But this is market economics, and this is what we expect, nay, desire from our entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy, undeterred, has announced two more loan guarantee programs for solar innovation. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense is getting on the solar train, too, with a Solar City program that will provide clean energy to the homes of 160,000 of our troops and their families. I can’t think of a better way to commemorate 9/11 than with true energy independence being given to some of the most deserving among us.  Now, let’s just do it for all of our military, veterans, firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public servants. But 160,000 homes to start with is pretty darn nice.

But why Solyndra is troublesome is because it appears undue influence may have been exerted to get them these loan guarantees.  One of Solyndra’s top investors was also a bundler for the Obama campaign responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations.  A commitment to the highest ethical standards that the Obama Administration guaranteed when they took office meant they should have done extra due diligence on giving any loan guarantees to anyone with any sort of money connection to the White House. Every i dotted, every t crossed– special treatment, but special treatment to insure they weren’t receiving funds because of political donations. Indeed, they should have been held to a much higher standard than their peers.

This is an entirely self-inflicted wound on the part of the Obama Administration. It should have been avoided, and questions not only the ethics of those in charge but the rationality. Surely they should have seen this coming.

If they didn’t, here’s a warning sign for you: Keystone XL. The pipeline, proposed by Canadian company Transcanada, would bring the world’s dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands to refineries in the Houston area along the Texas Gulf Coast. They are currently doing their best to get the pipeline approved, including a slick PR campaign, push-polling in areas around where the pipeline would be and promising jobs if the pipeline is built, and using Washington’s revolving door of lobbyists, staff, and political consultants. Dirty money, dirty campaign, dirty tactics, dirty ethics. In fact, knowing that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be the final decider on whether the State Department issues the permit or not, Transcanada hired her former campaign operative Paul Elliot to be their chief lobbyist, among other hires with ties to the Obama campaign and administration.

Clinton and Obama approving Keystone XL would be another avoidable landmine for the White House. Unfortunately, this landmine has much more dire consequences if approved, as it would signal both Business as Usual in Washington with Big Oil getting their way, the end of any veneer of ethics or being serious about campaign finance by the Obama Administration, and. . .oh, “game over” for the planet because of runaway climate change.  More on this later.

Read Full Post »

Groups use social networking as a response to corporate influence over our political process

Posted in Good Government, tagged , on August 11, 2011 |

 The Day When $$$$ Equals Speech

The American public has become increasingly frustrated and angry about the corporate corruption of Congress. With the influence over politics wielded by wealthy corporate interests through their political spending, even modest efforts to curb pollution, ensure clean water and safe food, secure our financial system and more are stymied.

The deluge of more than $30 million spent by outsiders in this week’s Wisconsin recall elections and the sudden appearance and subsequent dissolution of a corporation that gave $1 million to a political action committee backing GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney are only the latest examples of the stunning sums of money flooding our current campaign finance landscape. The growing influence of corporate interests comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which gave corporations the “free speech” right to spend unlimited money to influence elections.

In response, a diverse group of more than a dozen organizations are participating today in “The Day When $$$$ Equals Speech.” Instead of words, participants are posting  a string of dollar signs on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and other social media networks in a vow to reclaim democracy, as seen in this sample tweet:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ http://bit.ly/DollarsOrDemocracy #WeThePeople will #reclaim

Participating groups include the Center for Biological Diversity, Campus Progress, the Center for Media and Democracy, Coffee Party USA, Common Cause, Demos, Greenpeace, the Hip Hop Caucus, Move to Amend, North Carolina Center for Voter Education, People for the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, The Story of Stuff Project, USAction, the We the People Campaign and The Young Turks.

“As corporations increasingly exert their influence over the political process, those of us without millions of dollars to spend on political campaigns are effectively silenced,” said Rick Claypool, online organizer for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “It is as if we have to speak through a kazoo while corporate CEOs speak through megaphones.”

The Website,  www.DollarsOrDemocracy.org,  encourages others to join the online protest and explains the impact of the Citizens United decision.

Corporations flooded the November 2010 midterm elections with a record amount of money. It is predicted that the 2012 presidential elections will see even more corporate money and will cost $7 billion.  We need to stand up now against this ‘$ as speech’ trend that is taking over our government.

Read Full Post »

2010 PAC Spending Jumps 12 Percent

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , on August 11, 2011 |

According to a new report by Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), a record 1,302 active Texas political action committees (PACs) spent $133 million in the two-year 2010 election cycle, a 12 percent increase from the 2008 cycle.  Over the past decade Texas PACs increased their spending nearly three-fold and the number of active PACs grew by 50%.

Check out TPJ’s latest in-depth analysis of PAC activity – Texas PACs: 2010 Cycle Spending – available at TPJ.ORG.

Read Full Post »

Texas League of Conservation Voters 2011 Legislative Scorecard

Posted in Good Government, tagged , , on August 8, 2011 |

During the Legislative Session, the Texas League of Conservation Voters was at the capitol advancing an environmental  conservation agenda on behalf of Texas Voters.   They have now released their 2011 TLCV scorecard which covers a range of votes and issues, including: renewable energy, green technologies, recycling and waste disposal.  Each vote scored presented a clear choice for Texas elected officials to uphold the conservation values that millions of Texans share.  Click here to see TLCV’s scorecard.

Don’t know who your elected officials are? Find out who represents you here.

Read Full Post »

The fairy tale of Texas politics

Posted in Good Government, tagged , , , on July 6, 2011 |

In an Austin American-Statesman editorial that ran last Saturday, July 2nd, the paper talked quite candidly about the lack of a level playing field in the Texas capital as pointed out by conservative East Texas republican freshman Representative David Simpson and liberal Austin-based Public Citizen director, Tom “Smitty” Smith.

The odd man from East Texas

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board

July 2, 2011

For whatever reason and for whatever it says about their region, East Texans occasionally send us lawmakers who are just a bit different.

But difference, like diversity, can be good.

David Simpson

Representative David Simpson (R-Longview)

This year, the people of the Pineywoods sent us Republican Rep. David Simpson, who wears his Christian faith on his sleeve and is uninterested in being just another freshman eager to go along to get along.

“I guess I don’t know what a freshman’s supposed to do,” Simpson told the American-Statesman’s Tim Eaton in April.

Last Wednesday, in the special legislative session’s closing moments, Simpson showed he also doesn’t know what a freshman isn’t supposed to do by giving a blistering speech generally critical of legislative process and specifically critical of the death of his bill criminalizing invasive pat-downs by Transportation Security Administration agents.

Simpson’s “personal privilege” speech was odd, and many of his House colleagues consider him a bit odd. Be that as it may — and setting aside what we believe was his misguided war against the TSA — it should be noted that Simpson raised some basic and important questions about legislative process.

“We all, no doubt, were aware that when we came to these grand halls that there also would be within them duplicity and deceit,” he told colleagues. “The challenge, though, is not to succumb to it, not to go along to get along in order to be re-elected, not to be complicit with its corruption.”

Corruption is a strong word. If Simpson has first-hand knowledge of corruption, it is his duty to report it to the proper authorities. But Simpson also pointed to peculiarities of the legislative process that, while somewhere this side of corruption, can cause head-scratching, including the expedited handling of measures on the House Local and Consent Calendar that might not actually meet the requirements for streamlined handling.

He also raised good questions about the no-new-taxes state budget of which Gov. Rick Perry and other Capitol conservatives are so proud.

“Methinks we boast too much,” Simpson cautioned. “Some are touting that we have not raised taxes and have not used the rainy day fund. But let’s be honest about it. We are deferring $4 billion into the next biennium. Is that conservative? Is using tax speed-ups conservative?”

Simpson also noted shortfalls in Medicaid funding and the use of the rainy day fund to balance the current state budget. “And we have not kept up with the enrollment of our schools,” he said. “We are funding our schools a little bit more but not on a per-capita basis.”

“How can it be right to approve a half-billion dollars of handouts to special interests, including commercials for Fortune 500 companies? We put them before our children, before our students, before our coming workforce,” he complained.

Simpson was referring to state records that show subsidies (though not $500 million worth) for the production of commercials for Fortune 500 companies.

Simpson also discussed his support for abolishing the state’s Emerging Technology Fund that doles out dollars to promising business ventures. For his efforts, Simpson said he “was scolded and told (by a state leader) that if I wanted to come back … we’ve got to keep taking pork back to the district.”

“The majority in my district don’t want more pork, more handouts for special interests,” he said. “They want a level playing field.”

“Politics has a lot in common with fairy tales,” he said. “In both arenas, you have to suspend rational faculties in order to comprehend what’s going on.”

He is correct. At the Capitol, when House members flit about the chamber and cast votes for absent colleagues or to register an absent colleague as present, you do indeed have to suspend rational faculties to justify what you’re seeing. You also have to do that when a majority of the members of each chamber blatantly retreat into private to discuss the public’s business.

You also gaze in wonderment when important legislation, including bills that died during the process after lengthy deliberation, spring to life as below-the-radar amendments appended to related or semi-related or unrelated legislation in the session’s closing days.

Tom "Smitty" Smith - Director, Texas office of Public Citizen

It all gets back to what Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen Texas, an advocacy group that bills itself as “the people’s voice,” calls “the three really big lies about the Texas Legislature.”

  1. The first is that “ideas pass and fail on their merits, as opposed to whether they are going to protect the politicians that are in power.”
  2. The second big lie is that the rules are fair. “Anybody who has watched the Legislature knows the clocks don’t run on time and the rules get bent to benefit the people who are the insiders,” Smith said.
  3. The third big lie is that the budget is based on needs. Smith noted that economic development funds controlled by Gov. Rick Perry didn’t get cut, “but we cut budgets for those people who need it the most, whether it be state agency workers or school kids.”

Smith and Simpson probably are on the opposite sides of many issues of importance. But Smith praised Simpson for “calling out the basic lies that permeate the Texas legislative process.”

“He represents the kind of principled politician we all hope we elect every session to represent us,” Smith said.

Some see Simpson as odd. Smith sees something else.

“For me, he is a hero,” Smith said

We should all keep this in mind when we go to the polls to vote.  Kudos to the Statesman for editorializing on this.

Read Full Post »

FEC approves Colbert SuperPAC – hilarity AND sadness to ensue?

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 30, 2011 |

Stephen Colbert and the FEC squared off today in Washington over the fake news anchor’s SuperPAC request. Colbert testified today in an FEC hearing in which he sought a media exemption so he can form his own Super political action committee. The Comedy Central host has been making fun of campaign finance laws for months and today was the moment of truth for the comedian. Colbert has brought attention to the controversial campaign finance laws and has been largely seen as showing how absurd the laws surrounding a SuperPAC can be.

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.


Read Full Post »

Dead Air for Perry

Posted in Good Government, tagged , , , on June 30, 2011 |

photo by: Bob Daemmrich

In an interesting twist to what had been a post-session, pre-presidential run period of  crowds chanting “Run, Rick, Run!” everywhere he has shown up, probably reminiscent of the Governor’s A&M yell leader years, Rick Perry was subtly called to task for anti-immigrant efforts during both the regular and special session of the 82nd legislature, then shunned by San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, and left standing as dead air fell upon the room before someone stepped in to introduce the Governor as he addressed the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO).  Not a good sign from the hispanic community for someone who is considering a run for the presidency.  The San Antonio Current posted this update in thier QueQue blog.

Castro punks Perry

Fresh from his renewed push to dismantle so-called sanctuary cities at the Texas Lege, Governor Rick Perry addressed the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials to a subdued hostility last week. Harassed and derided by protesters on the street, Perry also took heat from none other than Mayor Julián Castro inside before reaching the podium. Referencing Perry’s effort to, not once but twice, push controversial immigration measures through the Lege, Castro said, “We’ve seen in the State of Texas the call for Arizona-type legislation. We have seen, in this legislative session, easily the most anti-Latino agenda in more than a generation, pursued without shame.” Castro left the stage without even introducing the governor. After an awkward five-minute pause, Republican convert and South Texas state Rep. Aaron Peña took to the mic, introducing Perry by praising him as a tax-cutting, experienced leader.

Protesters outside Perry’s speech scoffed at his presence at the NALEO luncheon, saying it was nothing more than a move to gauge support among Latinos while pondering a White House bid. “It’s insulting for us,” said Diana Lopez, an organizer with Southwest Workers Union. “He wants to run for president, that’s why he’s here. He wants to be seen with these people.” If Perry hopes to sway Hispanics, his San Antonio reception suggests he’s got a lot of work ahead of him. New projections from NALEO released last week estimate at least 12.2 million Latinos will turn out in the next presidential election, an increase of 26 percent from 2008. And Latinos in Texas, NALEO says, are likely to account for over 20 percent of the Latino vote.

If this is the response he got from hispanic leaders here in Texas, will the rest of the Latino’s in the U.S. soon be chanting “Run, Rick, Run – back home to Texas” if he pursues his candidacy for president?

Click here to read about an environmental justice issue for Latinos.

Read Full Post »

New Laws Offer Hope For Transparency

Posted in Good Government, Texas Legislature, tagged , , , , , , on June 22, 2011 |

from http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmgimages/4882451468/The Texas Legislature has taken steps to offer more transparency in government this legislative year. As a Texas Tribune article  written by Becca Aaronson points out, lawmakers hope this will provide a lot of information to be available online. However, some people are worried that private information could be leaked to the public because of the recent breaches in security online on the Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services website. Some experts are concerned that with the amount of information being released some private information could become public.

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.

Read Full Post »

Austin City Council Run-off Election Debate

Posted in Energy, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 17, 2011 |

Solar Austin held a debate between Austin City Council Place 3 candidates Randi Shade and Kathy Tovo. The focus was on energy issues. Here is a brief excerpt from the debates where each candidate addresses a question about how an increase of electricity rates should be handled.

[vimeo=25250426]

The election is this Saturday, June 18. You can view the entire debate here:

[vimeo=25244125]

Read Full Post »

Disclosure Forms Show Texas Lawmakers Invest in Media While Others Are In Debt

Posted in Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 17, 2011 |

Public disclosure forms released Wednesday show that Texas lawmakers have widely varying financial situations.  In an OpenSecrets blog post, Tarini Parti breaks down how many members of Congress invest in media organizations.  Parti explains that this could be a conflict of interest because many members have a “vested interest…in the performance of the same organizations that are supposed to be their watchdogs”.

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.

Read Full Post »

State Senator Attempts to Get Rid of His Own Amendment

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, Texas Legislature, tagged , , , , on June 10, 2011 |

Texas State Senator Mike Jackson added an amendment to the ethics bill (HB 1616) only 48 hours before the regular session ended and seems to be regretting that decision.  Now he wants Gov. Rick Perry to veto his own legislation. 

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.

Read Full Post »

Shareholders Fight Back Against Citizens United

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , , on June 9, 2011 |

In a shareholder meeting yesterday, Target executives addressed growing concerns over political actions of the company as well as performance. Shareholders were upset over the $150,000 donation to Minnesota Forward, which is a political group that backed Tom Emmer as a gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota in 2010. Emmer is an opponent of same-sex marriage and the relationship between Target and the candidate sparked a flurry of protests at the time including a flashmob inside one Target store. The singing group even referenced the controversial Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

 

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhMMmqzbD8]

 

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.

 

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw_iaP87G_E]

 

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.

Read Full Post »

Money and Politics Going Hand in Hand

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, Texas Legislature, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 3, 2011 |

In a recent NPR show, former Labor Secretary and political commentator Robert Reich addressed the potential executive order by President Obama to require government contractors to disclose their political spending. Reich wants to take the executive order a step farther by eliminating all political contributions from government contractors. Reich explains that contractors such as Lockheed Martin get a large portion of their contracts from the federal government and then use that money to lobby members of Congress.

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

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »