Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘campaign finance reform’

DA general 6If you pay any attention to politics, you might often wonder if the decisions being made are really what people want.  The answer is often no.

Wealthy donors, including corporations and individuals, are able to contribute unlimited money to super PACs (political action committees) to support or oppose candidates for elected office.  Although this money is technically separate from donations directly to candidates, super PACs are clearly working in lock-step with candidates’ campaigns.  On top of that, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the door for unlimited spending on campaigns by political nonprofit organizations, which don’t have to disclose their donors.  So, wealthy individuals and powerful business interests can secretly spend unlimited money on elections.  And they are.  This results in elected officials who are beholden to those wealthy donors, not the people.  Does that sound like democracy?

In addition to the corrupting influence of money on politics, the basic right to vote is under constant attack.  In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states, including Texas, to receive authorization from the federal government before changing how elections are conducted. That provision caused hundreds of proposed changes to be withdrawn or altered because the Justice Department was concerned that they may be discriminatory.  Now, those states can enact potentially discriminatory elections laws and they much be challenged through the court system by those who are harmed.  This adds expense and, much more importantly, results in the denying citizens their right to vote.  Another major blow to democracy.

Enter Democracy Awakening.  Over 200 organizations representing a broad array of interests – civil rights, the environment, labor, peace, students – are working together to bring national attention to the problems caused by the influence of money on politics and voter disenfranchisement.  There will be a large rally and other events in Washington D.C. and supporting events in cities across the country on Sunday, April 17.

Austin Rally: Sunday, April 17 at 1 p.m. in the southwest corner of the Capitol grounds in Austin.  There will be short speeches, music, tables with information and a march down Congress Ave.

Dallas Rally: Sunday, April 17 at 1 p.m. at the Reverchon Park Recreation Center (3505 Maple Ave).  The event will include speeches, activities, tables with information and a march to Lee Park.

Regardless of what issue you care about most, the degradation of our democracy by denying voters their rights and allowing unlimited sums of money to determine political outcomes is a serious threat.  I need look no further than my top priority, climate change, to see many examples of how money, not voters are determining policy decisions.  A large majority of Americans want action to stop climate change, and yet Congress has failed to place limits or a tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

Please join us to rise up and defend our democracy by demanding reforms.

  • Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 2867, S. 1659)
  • Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 2867, S. 1659)
  • Democracy For All Amendment (H.J.Res. 22, S.J.Res. 5)
  • Government By the People Act/Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 20 and S. 1538)
  • Fair consideration of the nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy

Read Full Post »

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 »

Most folks outside of Wisconsin and the Washington beltway were not paying much attention to that state’s recent state supreme court justice election, but in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision this election was a study in what judicial elections have evolved into — a trend of “noisier, nastier and costlier” elections that began when the Chamber started targeting judicial candidates in the 1998 elections.  Click here to read the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law’s report, The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change.  And click here to check out the TV ads that ran during this campaign.

This might have been a study in public campaign financing as both candidates received $300,000 in public financing to wage their campaigns, but instead it evolved into a battle of outside group spending with incumbent justice Prosser garnering substantially greater financial support than challenger Kloppenburg.

As the groundswell against Wisconsin’s controversial governor Scott Walker built, the ads paid for by outside funding started filling the airwaves.  Prosser received the benefit of $2,216,120 in outside advertising support, and Kloppenburg received $1,365,340 in outside advertising support.

Kloppenburg and Prosser ran neck and neck in this race despite Prosser’s financial advantage, no doubt to Prosser being linked with Walker which greatly handicapped his campaign, and the race ended so closely that there is bound to be a recount so this story is not over, but it is a cautionary tale about the effects of outside support on judicial political campaigns of which Texas has been a target (see, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law’s report, The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change.

###

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 »

Recently, I learned about a good website that tracks the flow of corporate energy money in Congress. The website is a great tool for someone who is interested in knowing who gets what from who and if you are a Texan you will get to see your state initials in many places in the website. The website ranks Congressmen according to how much money they receive from dirty energy corporations but unlike Texas’ football rankings, these rankings don’t make me proud.
There are six Congressmen and women who rank among the top recipients of dirty energy money. Three of them are from Texas, two of which occupy the top two ranks on the list. The top recipient is John Cornyn, next is (Guess who) Joe Barton, and also on the list, the former Republican Governor candidate , Kay Bailey Hutchison. It would make sense why Texas was one of the loudest states in voicing opposition to the offshore-drilling moratorium and it make sense why a guy like Joe Barton would apologize to BP in front of the whole nation while maintaining a straight face.

There are many key findings in the website and the numbers are staggering. Besides listing the “dirtiest politicians,” Dirty Energy Money lists “Dirtiest Congresses,” and “Big-Spending Companies.” So far, this 111th Congress has only collected about 14 million dollars in contributions from dirty energy companies which are much less than the 22 million contributed to the 110th Congress but 2010 is not over yet.

Dirty Energy Money also compares the funds received by both parties from the different energy industries. It also compares votes on major energy legislation while showing how much money the Yeas received verses the Nay’s.

Visit the website, you will find many revealing facts about the two parties, Congress, companies, and the politicians involved. It is definitely a good resource for you to look at before you cast you vote in November.

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 »

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 »

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 »