In an article today by BRENT KENDALL And TENNILLE TRACY of the Washington post, they write that the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether eight states and other plaintiffs can proceed with lawsuits that seek to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by utilities.
Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’
Supreme Court set to review CO2 suits
Posted in Global Warming, tagged supreme court, Texas, the Supreme Court on December 7, 2010 |
![[scotus]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-KJ854_scotus_D_20101008152726.jpg)
Voters steamed at Supreme Court over Citizens United
Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged citizens united, don't get rolled, Fair Elections Now Act, supreme court, Texas 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.
Maybe this is why, according to a separate poll, 75% of Americans say they are “angry” at our government. But let not your hearts be troubled, the good news is the American people are far, far ahead of our political leaders (as usual!) and overwhelmingly support landmark reforms like the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow for public financing for Congressional elections.
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.
Don’t Get Rolled Rally: Austin Update
Posted in Global Warming, tagged andy wilson, Austin, clean elections texas, common cause, daily texan, don't get rolled, federal election commission, mccain feingold, Public Citizen, Robert Weissman, supreme court, Texas on September 10, 2009 |
Earlier this week, Public Citizen hosted a rally at the state capitol to raise awareness about the U.S. Supreme Court re-hearing Wednesday of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Representatives from Common Cause and Clean Elections Texas joined us, despite the rain and ominous weather. Many thanks to our good government brethren for their support.
The Daily Texan was also on hand, and reported the following:
Public Citizen, a national nonprofit public interest group, organized the rally because officials said they fear a ruling in favor of Citizens United could possibly give corporations more leverage is raising funds for political campaigns.
…The group is concerned this case will allow corporations to spend freely on political advertising that will influence voters.
“The court has signaled that they would like to overturn the precedent of these cases,” Wilson said. “If we allow unlimited corporate ‘free speech,’ then everyone else will be drowned out.”
Well said, Wilson.
But we weren’t the only ones to show up. Andy and David dressed up as corporate fat cats REAL, BONAFIDE corporate boogeymen came to protest our protest! Can you believe the gall? But don’t worry. From the looks of their faces, they didn’t get the turnout they were hoping for either. Poor corporations, it rained on their parade…
Check out this video to prove we ain’t lyin:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUGlj_a214Y]
Our new president, Robert Weissman, also had a few words to say about the Citizen’s United case:
Fate of Democracy Now in Supreme Court’s Hands
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
Overturning the court’s precedents on corporate election expenditures would be nothing short of a disaster. Corporations already dominate our political process – through political action committees, fundraisers, high-paid lobbyists and personal contributions by corporate insiders, often bundled together to increase their impact, and more.
If the court rules to free corporations to make unlimited campaign expenditures from their treasuries, the election playing field will be tilted massively against candidates advancing the public interest. Candidates and elected officials will be chilled from standing up for what’s right. And officials who take on the narrow interests of particular corporations – over a facility siting decision, or a specific subsidy, for example – will face the risk of retaliation in the next election.
Corporations don’t vote, and they shouldn’t be permitted to spend limitless amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
The battle begins in the Supreme Court today
Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged Campaign Finance, Congress, corporate money, corporate responsibility, don't get rolled, politics, publicly financed elections, rabble-rousing, supreme court, Texas 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.
Your 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!
Public Citizen Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Campaign Finance Reform Law
Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged austin v michigan chamber of commerce, bcra, bipartisan campaign reform act, Campaign Finance, citizens united, Elections, george washington university law school, hillary: the movie, litigation, mcconnell v FEC, political action committees, publi ctizen, randy moss, roger witten, scott nelson, seth waxman, supreme court, Texas, wilmer culter pickering & dorr llp on July 31, 2009 |
Overturning Campaign Finance Restrictions Would Allow Corporations to Dominate Elections
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Public Citizen joined a team of other attorneys in submitting a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court today, urging the court to adhere to its precedents and reaffirm the longstanding principle that corporations may not engage in unfettered campaign spending.
The brief filed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission argues that if the Supreme Court overrules past decisions and strikes down portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), corporations would be free to mobilize their vast assets as political “war chests” and could soon come to dominate electoral discourse.
Ruling against BCRA would not only condemn its electioneering provisions, but also the decades-old requirement that corporations make campaign expenditures only through political action committees (PACs) funded by individual donations, not from their corporate treasuries.
“This has become one of the most important campaign finance cases of our generation,” said Public Citizen attorney Scott Nelson, who coauthored the brief with former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman and his partners Randy Moss and Roger Witten of the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, as well as former Public Citizen Litigation Group Director Alan Morrison, currently on the faculty of the George Washington University Law School.
The case involves the abortive plan of a right-wing group, Citizens United, to broadcast Hillary: The Movie, which a lower court found to be electioneering subject to BCRA. Among other things, BCRA prevents corporations from funding broadcasts containing candidate advocacy except through segregated funds, or PACs, with all money donated by individuals. Citizens United admittedly did not comply with those restrictions.
After hearing argument in the case in March, the Supreme Court announced that it wanted to hear additional argument on whether two of its key precedents allowing limitations on for-profit corporations’ ability to use corporate funds for electoral purposes should be overruled. The brief filed today on behalf of the principal congressional sponsors of BCRA (Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold and former Reps. Chris Shays and Marty Meehan) strongly urges the court to uphold BCRA’s constitutionality.
Now at issue in the case is whether the court should overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which held that the government can limit for-profit corporations to the use of PACs to fund express electoral advocacy, and McConnell v. FEC, which applied that principle to uphold the constitutionality of BCRA’s “electioneering communications” provisions, which restrict corporate funding of election-eve broadcasts that mention candidates and convey unmistakable electoral messages.
The brief submitted on behalf of the BCRA sponsors urges that “[o]verruling Austin or McConnell in this case would be unwarranted and unseemly” and that the principle of respect for the court’s precedents requires a “special justification” – which is absent here – before the court may take such a drastic step. The decisions, the brief contends, “are vital cornerstones of modern campaign finance”and “[o]verruling them would severely jolt our political system.”
The case will be reargued on Sept. 9. A copy of the complete brief is available at http://www.citizen.org/documents/CitizensUnitedSuppAmicus.pdf.
###
EPA’s Declaration that Greenhouse Gas Emissions Endanger Public is Long Overdue
Posted in Global Warming, tagged andy wilson, cap and trade, Carbon Dioxide, charlie gonzalez, citizen andy, clean air act, climate change, co2, coal plant, Congress, drought, endangerment finding, EPA, Gene Green, Global Warming, greenhouse gasses, house energy and commerce, Joe Barton, Lisa Jackson, lowered crop yields, Markey, mass v epa, michael burgess, president obama, Public Citizen, supreme court, Texas, Waxman on April 20, 2009 |
NEWSFLASH! Carbon Dioxide emissions may represent a threat to public health or welfare.
Shocking, I know. But what is old news to the rest of us, released in the form of a proposed endangerment finding by the EPA, is actually a really big deal. Environmentalists and concerned citizens alike have been waiting years for this announcement. In 2007, as a result of the landmark Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, the court ordered the EPA administrator to determine if greenhouse gas emissions could “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Bush Administration delayed reacting to this order, but Friday EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a proposed endangerment finding which identified six global warming gasses that pose a threat to human health.
The finding will now enter a 60-day comment period, and have no immediate regulatory effect, but could give the EPA power to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.
According to the EPA’s official statement,
Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.
After years of global warming being the elephant in the room that the government would not address, the EPA’s proposed finding finally gives the agency the ability to take action on climate change — though as stated, everyone would rather Congress take care of business. Hopefully, this finding will light a fire under cap-and-trade negotiations.
Its kind of like when my mother used threaten that she’d clean my room herself if I didn’t get cracking — which I knew meant she would just come in with a trash bag and clear everything out. The EPA could straight up regulate carbon dioxide — but few people would really be happy with the result, most environmentalists included. By creating new policy, Congress is simply better equipped to deal with our greenhouse gas emissions than the EPA.
So sorry Congress — no more reading the comics you found with the dust bunnies under the bed. Go clean up, or Mom’s going to start vacuuming.
But don’t take my word for it. Andy Wilson (Citizen Andy, if you will), Global Warming Program Director here at the Texas Office, wrote a statement on how this finding relates to the big picture, and Texas specifically. Check it out!
Support our work!
">spousalSubscribe by Email
Categories
Popular Tags
air pollution Air Quality Austin Austin Energy Barnett shale Carbon Dioxide clean air act Clean Energy climate change Coal coal plant CPS Energy Energy Energy Efficiency Environmental Protection Agency EPA eye on williamson Global Warming green jobs houston Keystone Pipeline natural gas Nuclear Nuclear Power Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Citizen public citizen texas radioactive waste renewable energy Renewables Rick Perry San Antonio SEED Coalition Sierra Club solar solar power south texas chisme South Texas Project TCEQ Texas Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Legislature texas progressive alliance Tom "Smitty" Smith United States Environmental Protection Agency
Citizen Vox Blog-
350 Challenge
Pages
November 2024 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Archives
Meta