Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘election’

Unlimited and undisclosed money is pouring into our elections and threatening our democracy

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , on September 26, 2012 |

The controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United – that gave corporations untold influence in our electoral system and said “money” is “speech” – has created an environment in which millions of dollars in corporate cash is drowning out the voices of Texans.

It is time for Texans to demand the end of unlimited money in our elections and take action on a local level.

We are proud to support a homegrown Texas grassroots movement called Texans United to Amend in their efforts demanding local governments across the state of Texas pass resolutions supporting a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and declare that only human beings are entitled to rights under our constitution.

We are joining Texas United to Amend to ask for you to make a difference in your community and sign this petition urging your local government to pass a resolution that seeks an amendment of the U.S. Constitution that firmly establishes that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations are entitled to constitutional rights.

Sign the petition today and call on your local government to pass a resolution.

You might be asking – why local governments? Isn’t this a federal issue?

Social change has always come from grassroots groups, with speeches and marches in the street. This has been true of both the direct election of Senators (17th Amendment) and Women’s Suffrage (19th Amendment). The movement for a constitutional amendment to remedy Citizens United is, at its core, a grassroots one. It is driven by real concerns about the health of our democracy that reverberate in each and every community in Texas.

Passing local resolutions at the local level in Texas is the necessary first step toward restoring free and fair elections to the American people, both locally and nationally. Your work, along with coalitions like Texas United to Amend, can make a difference.

Click here and join Texans United to Amend in calling on your local government to pass a resolution that seeks an amendment of the U.S. Constitution that firmly establishes that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations are entitled to constitutional rights.

Across the country, ordinary citizens like you are making their voices heard.  Nine states have already passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and many more states are considering the same. If you want to do more, let us help you set up an organizing meeting the week of October 8.  This will be an exciting way to begin planning for the third anniversary of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and to prepare to gather petition signatures on election day when millions of potentially interested voters go to the polls.  Click here to get more information and sign up.

Read Full Post »

This is the dawning of the age of the super PAC

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , on August 17, 2011 |

It is looking like the 2012 election will be dominated by the Super PAC.  If you thought your voice counted for little before, check out this MSNBC story on the new powerhouse super PAC called “Make Us Great Again” which, while claiming it is independent, just launched a website filled with photos of Rick Perry and campaign bullet points about the governor’s record creating jobs and lowering taxes in Texas.  No mention about slashing public education funding or what types of jobs were created in the state.

 

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 »

Clean Air Act Restrictions Pushed Aside in Wake of Political Preparation and Industry Pressure

Posted in Air Quality, Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 7, 2011 |

Election season is imminent and advocates for environmental welfare and public health need not look very far for the hyper-political red tape and drawbacks to pollution legislation. Like many of her colleagues in the Democratic Party, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has been campaigning nationwide for the regulation of toxins such as mercury from coal burners which, in effect, could prevent thousands of related deaths and stimulate the job market. Just two weeks ago, Jackson even made an appearance on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” encouraging viewers to exercise vigilance in the fight against toxic emissions and to demand personal protections for clean air and water.

Her sentiments were met with grand applause due to their pertinence in 2011 where it is estimated that 72% of all toxic mercury air pollution in the United States is attributable to coal plants in violation of the Clean Air Act. Just to add some perspective to this statistic, such a figure indicates that 386,000 tons of hazardous compounds are being emitted into the atmosphere per year at an unprecedented rate.

Jackson’s apparent support for tightened environmental regulations was short-lived however, when just one week following her Comedy Central interview the EPA halted essential protections for controlling exposure to air-borne mercury, arsenic, lead, and a plethora of acid gases. The basis for these laws were established in 1990 when President H.W. Bush signed Clean Air Act amendments into law thus making it the EPA’s responsibility to establish emission standards for industrial facilities. Originally, these plans operated on a permit system designed to pinpoint power plants, factories, and additional sources of ground level ozone that had exceeded allowable limits for what was deemed “requisite to protect the public welfare.”

One of these statutes created under H.W. Bush’s administration, called Boiler MACT, monitored emission caps from boilers that produced power sources specifically like those found in large to small coal plants. As of February 2011, under a court issued order, the EPA was also charged with the task of enforcing this body of legislative action. And now, a mere two years after the Obama administration vowed to protect the interests of public health and respect the law, this regulation is one of many that Jackson’s post at the EPA has indefinitely delayed.

Historically, the EPA has acted as an outspoken critic of the industrial “Powers that be” and their habits of ignoring Clean Air Act restrictions with economic impunity. In fact it was the EPA’s records that first indicated that more than 4,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 1,600 cases of acute bronchitis and an excess of 313,000 missed work and school days could be avoided if these laws were enacted properly- and this doesn’t even account for the upwards of 6,600 toxic related deaths. But the EPA strayed its course due to the fast-approaching 2012 elections. They managed to place re-election aspirations above environmental necessities on the hierarchy of political agendas, caved to industry pressures, and watered down many of their contingencies to begin with.

In lieu of this regressive blow to mandatory emission guidelines, Lisa Jackson and the EPA as a whole have endangered countless vulnerable Americans by casting a blind eye to the Boiler MACT legislation. Not only are these steps in reverse potentially (almost certainly) disastrous, people living near industrial giants and coal-fired power plants are now at serious odds with their own health and well-being.

Read Full Post »

Pedernales Electric Co-op voting begins! An overview

Posted in Co-op Reform, tagged , , , , on May 5, 2011 |

UPDATE: We’ve added a little here and there based on some new information we’ve gotten since first publishing this, specifically some information from NRECA (National Rural Electric Cooperative Association) and Pedernales’ counsel about the effects of converting to SMDs.

Well folks, yesterday marked the beginning of voting for the board of the Pedernales Electric Coop.  I’m a proud co-op member, something I couldn’t have said several years ago when the co-op board met behind closed doors and the board nominated its own members. But now we have returned to the principle of democratic control by the member-owners of the co-op, in no small part due to the work of Public Citizen and others.

There’s been a lot of news recently about PEC and Public Citizen’s involvement in the reform effort.  We’re not going to comment on that just yet, as we want to keep this focused on the issue at hand, which is the election.  Voters across the co-op have the opportunity to vote for two board seats and on a member referendum about future elections and how they should take place.

You can vote in three ways.  A ballot should have been mailed to you on Wednesday according to PEC staff.  In it you will see that you can vote for candidates in Districts 2 and 3 and on the question of single member districts.  You can see videos of each of the candidates at the PEC Candidate Forum online here. We’ll let the candidates speak for themselves on why they should get your vote, as we do not and will not endorse anyone in these races.

However, what’s missing in all of this is a discussion about the pros and cons of single member district voting. Below I’ve attached the presentation we made to board candidates about what we would like to see in the future for PEC. We lay out a broad vision that investing in the future and the key to lower rates is efficiency and renewables. These also just so happen to help things like clean air, create jobs, and use little water in comparison to traditional power generation.  We believe that as a co-op, based on the principles of what a cooperative is (as opposed to a private utility or municipal utility), we have a special place in the community to be responsible, ethical, and think about the greater good of our policy choices.

Beware– this presentation is loooooooong, but I wanted to bring attention specifically to the slides about the pros and cons of single member districts. (pgs 15-19)

But in the spirit of transparency we wanted to put the entirety of what we spoke to the board candidates about out there. You know, in case someone publicly accuses you of being a secretive, corrupt cabal that pulls the strings at the co-op.

[scribd id=54650680 key=key-w92e1zwplb1yqkw42rp mode=list]

So, let’s discuss single member districts, or SMDs for short. I’m putting on my political science hat (my Political Science 350:  “Theories of Democracy and Democratization” professor would be so proud of me) and let’s talk about what SMDs actually do.  I’m personally agnostic about how people should vote on this. I see good sides and down sides to it, but both sides deserve an airing.

But first, what are we voting on?  This is how it will appear on the ballot: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Primary Day

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on March 2, 2010 |

It’s primary day! If you forgot/didn’t get a chance to go vote early(like me, grr), better not miss your chance today!

Not sure where your polling location is? Visit the Secretary of State’s website and ask Hope (Andrade, she’s the sec’ o’ state, duh)!

###

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 »