The IRS Symbol
Every month, the team here at NYDP uses this newsletter to disseminate information about how unlimited campaign contributions result in a system where politicians are accountable to interest groups who fund their campaigns instead of the voters they represent; and how this system undermines our democracy and results in bad policy. Defense contractors pushing our military into conflicts; oil and coal companies slowing the development of renewable energy sources; and insurance companies keeping Congress from seriously discussing the public health care option that was so popular among voters are all illustrations of the need to get corporate money out of politics so that the people can have more influence over government. And while these policies have cost trillions of dollars and even the loss of human life, none have had as widespread an impact on everyday voters as the topic of this month’s entry: the tax code.
Two old-fashioned tax collectors
As everyone surely knows, tax revenue allows the government to provide services and pay its debts; and the tax code is the document that our representatives in government vote on to decide where the money comes from. Less widely known, however, is the process by which moneyed interests exert their influence on our representatives in such a way that economists are ignored and the middle class is saddled with an out-sized tax burden in order to benefit the super rich.
This newsletter is not big enough to completely unpack the issues surrounding the negative influence that large donors have had on the way our government pays its bills, or to prescribe and defend a comprehensive tax policy. So we will instead concentrate on a few foundational ideas: First, when our representatives in government say that raising taxes on the top 1% of income earners is a “job killer,” they are spouting a total falsehood. Second, the representatives who exert this damaging influence on our policies and our national conversation are being paid to do so by extremely well-funded organizations that do not represent mainstream interests. And third, public financing of campaigns can help us move towards a tax system that reflects our national interests: allowing us to keep more of our income without gutting essential programs or sacrificing economic growth.
(1) Raising taxes on the rich is not a “job killer.”
The United States has always used a system of “progressive taxation,” meaning that as you make more money, you pay a larger share of your income to the government through taxes. In 1950, the tax code was very progressive: the top tax rate was 90%. Today, the top tax rate is 35%, and it has been since 2003.
It is a commonly-held belief among economic conservatives that taxes, by definition, strangle economic expansion. This line of attack has been used successfully to slash taxes on the top 1%. But now that we’ve been lowering taxes for decades and in the process seen a ballooning national debt and persistent unemployment, it makes sense to take a hard look at the connection between taxes and employment.
FDR Signing the Social Security Act
As the top tax rate has marched steadily downward over the decades, there have been three instances where politicians bucked the trend and raised taxes on the rich: From 70%-77% under LBJ to pay for things like Medicare and the Vietnam War (taxes came down right away under Nixon); from 28% to 31% in the move that effectively ended the first Bush presidency; and from 31% to 40% in the early 90’s under Bill Clinton. And even with these periodic upticks in the top tax rate, the cuts have been much larger and much more frequent; sending us from a 90% top rate under Eisenhower, to 38% today. Tax cuts for the super rich haven’t come without a cost, however. As politicians paired tax cuts with increased spending on military operations and old-age benefits, the national debt has gone through the roof. Today, we are seeing the result of anti-tax orthodoxy: the government is broke, our schools and our infrastructure are failing us, and incomes of the richest 1% have skyrocketed. Why is this happening? (2) Special interest groups donate huge amounts of money to politicians in exchange for anti-tax orthodoxy in policymaking and in the media. And it works. Especially in the Republican Party, the idea that tax hikes “kill jobs” is pervasive; from the leadership on down to the Tea Party freshmen in the House. But a comparison of unemployment rates to top tax rates over time shows no correlation between higher taxes on the rich and higher unemployment. In fact, on the rare occasions where the top tax rate has gone up, unemployment has gone down. Now, we are not saying that raising taxes will fix the unemployment crisis. Rather, we are saying that any politician who argues that tax hikes on the wealthy “kill jobs”–as if it’s an obvious and universally understood fact–has no intention whatsoever of advocating policies to curb unemployment. Politicians who utter this drivel are putting the interests of well-funded organizations above the interests of their own constituents.
The Club for Growth is a conservative political organization that spent a staggering $8.2 million in the 2010 election cycle helping Republicans who have done their bidding and assisting Republican primary challengers to unseat “RINO’s” who wavered in their anti-tax orthodoxy. In the 2010 legislative session, The Club for Growth opposed every bill that cut spending or taxes, to the point of opposing the deal to raise the debt ceiling last summer. That’s right, the Club for Growth, which says it has a goal of improving the business climate, opposed raising the debt ceiling. Mainstream economists are nearly unanimous in the opinion that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have resulted in an unqualified catastrophe for the United States and the world. A failure to raise the debt ceiling would have meant a default on U.S. Debt, seen by the world as the safest investment available. Anyone who has watched the world’s reaction to a potential default on the comparatively tiny Greek debt must understand the magnitude of a U.S. default. Also, failure to raise the ceiling would have resulted in an inability to pay Social Security checks, military paychecks, and other government expenses. So why, then, would any sane person oppose raising the debt ceiling? According to their own website, it was a “golden opportunity to assert [Its] agenda” (because every sane person recognized the debt ceiling needed to be raised). The Club for Growth wanted to throw its weight around: prove the extent of its influence, in order to increase its influence. And it worked. As part of the final debt ceiling deal passed into law, a “super-committee” was formed in order to find $1.2 trillion worth of deficit reduction after the ceiling was raised. The super-committee was made up of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans; most of whom came into the group with considerable experience getting things done in Congress. One exception to this rule was the freshman Senator from Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey.
Pat Toomey has no legislative achievements whatsoever, and was chosen to hammer out a deal with proven leaders from both sides of the aisle. What set Toomey apart? $890,000 in donations from the Club for Growth.
(3) Public financing of campaigns can reset the system so that our representatives in government are accountable to the voters, not the special interest groups that bankroll their candidacies. And that leads to better policy.
There is no reason that folks who believe in small government and personal freedom should have to cast their lot with politicians who are bought and paid for by influence peddling action organizations that demand orthodoxy over thoughtful policy-making. If we adopt a system where politicians who demonstrate support among voters can access public funds and compete, we might overcome the influence wielded by the super-rich through organizations that value low top rate taxes over policies that can make the economy better for everyone.
Tags: New York Democracy Project, Pat Toomey, Taxes Posted in Economy and Clean Elections | No Comments
Calls for job creation and worker centric economic reform have been on the rise as jobless claims rank above 350,000 and our economy continues to flail. Boutiques specializing in American-made goods are becoming increasingly popular, and support for small, local businesses has also been on the incline. In counterpoint to this rallying “Made in America” mindset, the Obama administration pushed through objectively regressive legislation last month that controversially lessens hope for domestic industry and employment.
Panama
Congress passed three so-called free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea in mid-October. Despite protests by activists from all four countries involved, years’ worth of stagnation, and strong opposition from labor unions and progressive Democrats, the bills passed with relative ease, clearing both the House and Senate with strong Republican support.
The bills, originally proposed by the Bush administration, were controversial and languished in limbo for five years. In an attempt to bolster support for the legislation, all three countries’ governments poured money into pressuring oppositional Congress members. According to The Hill, South Korea, Panama and Colombia spent at least $15 million on lobbying, legal and public relations efforts related to the trade agreements.
South Korean Coat of Arms
The agreements are predicted to have negligible positive impact on the U.S. economy; according to the New York Times, the deals are projected to increase the GDP by approximately $14.4 billion, or about 0.1 percent.
Instead, the overwhelming reaction to the deals is the fear that significant numbers of American jobs will now be outsourced. “With the projections that hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers will lose their jobs from the pending trade pacts, it’s hard to work up too much sympathy for the relative handful of lobbyist contracts that may expire after Congress votes on the deals,” said Todd Tucker, research director for Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, as reported by The Hill.
Colombian Woman
Concerns over Colombia’s treatment of labor unions have also contributed to objections about the agreements—the country has a history of violence against union activists. Labor-cognizant politicians have criticized the passing of the bills for its likely effect on U.S. workers—that is, the outsourcing of even more U.S. work. There has been backlash against the deals by foreign politicians, too. Colombian Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo told Democracy Now the deal was the country’s “worst decision” to date because of its likelihood of undermining Colombian sovereignty and human rights.
Still, the bills were passed with an easy majority. Indeed, cross-country trade and campaign contributions have a long and destructive history in the U.S. The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), signed into law in 1994, created a trade bloc between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, making trade and investments easier across the borders without allowing for the movement of labor.
The effects of NAFTA have been widespread and almost unerringly negative. NAFTA’s impact on U.S. jobs is widely debated; according to the Huffington Post, an Economic Policy Institute report revealed this year that an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been lost as a result of NAFTA, and that number is likely modest. In addition to U.S. deindustrialization, NAFTA has had an insidious impact on international wages (the “race to the bottom” effect), Mexican farmers and workers (NAFTA allowed the U.S. to flood Mexico with cheap corn and goods, disempowering Mexican farmers/laborers) and indigenous peoples (the agreement included a provision allowing Indian communal landholdings
Colombia
Multinational corporations wishing to do away with pesky governments demanding fair labor standards have giving billions in campaign contributions over the past few decades, and continue to do so, creating a free trade friendly political climate where there may have not been one otherwise. The number of corporations lobbying specifically for free trade has been steadily between 650 and 1,000 since 1998, reports Open Secrets, with 2011 measuring in at 781.
Beoing, the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial airplanes , has spent millions in campaign contributions and $12 million in lobbying alone in 2011, according to Open Secrets. The company not only supports increased defense spending, but also spent the most of any corporation supporting free trade.
It’s easy to feel disempowered when it comes to the dealings of countries across the world and corporations equipped with billions of dollars. But your voice needs to be heard. Voting for representatives in support of clean elections can help protect American jobs, preserve fair wages in foreign countries, and encourage fair multinational prosperity.
Clean elections legislation would make publicly financed campaign money available to men and women running for office. This would allow politicians to focus on the issues their constituents care about—not the concerns of huge, money-hungry corporations. Public campaign funds would also level the playing field for minorities and middle-class Americans that are interested in serving their neighbors and country. Officials would be held accountable for their voting history, and corporations wouldn’t have the same power over our country’s lawmakers.
Free trade isn’t free, and it will never be as long as powerful corporations are allowed to dominate our politicians’ decision making. To join the Clean Elections Voting Bloc and to learn more about clean elections, visit www.nydemocracyproject.org.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment
One month after the Occupy Wall Street protests began in lower Manhattan, they are still going strong, and their sentiment is being mirrored in sister demonstrations around the world As the protesters decry income inequality and corporate welfare--enunciating their anger at having their interests subordinated to those of the extremely wealthy--it is only fitting to examine how Wall Street bankers attained their level of influence in the first place.
The financial sector has spent over $5 billion in political influence over the past decade, according to the nonprofit Wall Street Watch: $1.73 billion in federal campaign contributions between 1998 and 2008, and over $3.3 billion in lobbying. Commercial banks made up a large chunk of that money, spending more than $154 million on campaign contributions and $383 million in officially registered lobbying. Securities firms spent the most overall, with $512 million in campaign contributions and nearly $600 million in lobbying. Specifically, Goldman Sachs forked over $46 million, while JP Morgan Chase donated $63 million. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch shelled out $108 million and $68 million, respectively.
All that spending bought the financial sector undue influence over our country’s political equation. The familiarity between Wall Street and Washington that these contributions bred resulted in a virtual revolving door between political and corporate offices. Several Goldman Sachs employees have gone on to hold top governmental positions, including former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulsen. Similarly, after surveying only 20 firms, Wall Street Watch found 142 industry lobbyists that had formerly worked in the executive branch of government.
With not only friends of Wall Street in the government, but actual employees, Congress is primed to pass corporate-friendly policies that line the pockets of the wealthy while disempowering average citizens. One such policy came in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated speculative investment and the way banks grow--the repeal of Glass-Steagall is widely blamed for the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Even The New American, a right wing magazine, points out that our nation’s collective focus and frustration should not only be on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, but also the “elected officials who continue to support government intervention in the free market and to pick and choose winners via regulations and the ‘too big to fail’ philosophy.”
With the 2012 presidential campaign getting closer every day, corporate-backed campaigns will continue to thrive, especially in the face of rampant public discontent announced by the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Mitt Romney, a former executive of a private investment firm, has received Wall Street contributions totaling--$813,300. While Obama is at $15.6 million. Think of all the “I.O.U.s” those two will be expected to return on, if elected into office. The disturbing point is that regardless of any altruistic intentions candidates may have as they aspire to public service, they almost inevitably must compromise if they are to win reelection. The system must change. Wall Street will keep writing its own rules unless we pass real campaign finance reform. Clean elections laws would provide public financing for political campaigns, and ensure that our representatives answer to regular people – not to Wall Street. Vote for politicians supporting clean elections reform if you really want to reject Wall Street’s influence.
Please visit http://www.nydemocracyproject.org to learn more about clean elections and to sign up for the Clean Elections Voting Bloc. With the campaign in full swing, it is more vital than ever that you voice your support for what we do want--getting money out of politics for good.
Tags: Occupy, Wall St. Posted in Economy and Clean Elections | No Comments
When Haiti was devastated by a massive earthquake in January 2010, the people of the United States responded with a tremendous out pouring of financial support. The actions of our government certainly don’t reflect the sentiment of its people.
Secret State Department cables leaked by WikiLeaks last month make the US’s hand in Haiti’s dire political situation clear. The documents unveiled the US government’s purposeful and planned opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically-elected president, and our involvement in the economic suppression of workers in the country.
Aristide was ousted as president in February 2004 in a bloody coup backed by the US, and promptly escorted to his exile in South Africa by a US Navy SEAL team in a move Aristide referred to as a “modern-day kidnapping.” Only two months after Aristide’s dismissal, the UN established their Stabilization Mission for Haiti-an organization that continues to oversee the country and one that US Ambassador Janet Sanderson referred to as “an indispensable tool in realizing core USG (US government) policy interests in Haiti” in the cables.
The leaked cables find our officials repeatedly referring to Aristide’s return to Haiti as “catastrophic” and “a disaster,” largely because of his opposition to free market ideals and his political power in the region. Indeed, according to The Nation, in 2004 Aristide was the only politician in Haiti with an approval rating above 50 percent. The US’s fear of this popularity is what kept Aristide in South Africa for seven years-something encouraged by then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the behest of the head of the UN team in Haiti.
Aristide ultimately returned to Haiti in March of this year. But his political party, the largest political party in Haiti, the Fanmi Lavalas, was barred from participating in the elections.
Not only has the US forcibly kept Haiti’s former leader out of his own country, we’ve suppressed the already-destitute workers of Haiti in order to keep them reliant on US corporations. Our efforts to manipulate Haiti’s politics in order to use the country as an outpost for American corporate interests can be traced back to 1915 when US Marines took control of the government and they continue to this day.
The WikiLeaks cables also revealed that contractors for Fruit of the Loom, Levi’s and Hanes worked with officials at the US Embassy to ferociously block an increase in the assembly zone workers’ minimum wage. Factory owners refused to pay workers 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day. “And they had the vigorous backing of the US Agency for International Development and the US Embassy when they took that stand,” wrote The Nation.
The clothing corporations were likely able to win the support of American officials in their quest against a minimum wage in large part due to their more than generous campaign contributions. According to Influence Explorer, Fruit of the Loom has spent nearly $950,000 in campaign contributions in the past decade, and over $1.5 million in lobbying. Similarly, Levi Strauss & Co. has invested over $500,000 both in campaign contributions and lobbying, while Hanes spent more than $2 million in lobbying over a period of seven years, and $45,000 in contributions in the past three years alone.
Despite having these millions to dedicate to influencing government decisions, the corporations couldn’t spare any of their operating budget to accommodate the extremely poor workers they employ and whose slave-like conditions their business models depend upon.
A two-tiered minimum wage was settled upon, with textile workers making $3 per day and commercial sectors at $5. The US Embassy was upset with this compromise, however, saying that the minimum wage “did not take economic reality into account,” and was a populist measure aimed at “the unemployed and underpaid masses,” according to the cables. Haitian workers are the lowest-paid in the Western Hemisphere, with an average yearly income of approximately $450 US dollars.
Constant meddling in Haiti’s political system has only served to further destabilize an already chaotic nation, leaving the weak infrastructure and economy that was unable to withstand or recover from the destruction of the earthquake. It’s embarrassing and vile that our country is willing to use and abuse another country for its own economic reasons.
Disagree with the way our politicians strong-armed Aristide out of his own country for refusing to adopt a neo-liberal corporate agenda? Disagree with our taxpayer dollars being spent on ousting a popular democratically elected foreign president? Want representatives that value human rights over cheap labor? Want politicians that have integrity in their political choices and listen to your demands?
Clean elections legislation would allow public financing for campaigns, opening up political office to more than millionaires and politicians backed by mega-corporations. By voting for a politician that supports clean elections, you’re not just standing up for disaster stricken Haiti, you’re voting for your own interests.
For more information visit www.nydemocracyproject.org. Join the Voting Bloc and we’ll send you alerts on your representatives’ positions. Know what you’re voting for when you go to the polls.
Tags: Aristide, Foreign Policy, Haiti, WikiLeaks Posted in Foreign Policy and Clean Elections | No Comments
Posted in Media and Clean Elections | 1 Comment
The average American eats 1,996.3 pounds of food per year. That number includes 110 pounds of red meat, 237 pounds of fruit and 600 pounds of dairy products, not to mention 23 pounds of pizza, 24 pounds of ice cream and 53 gallons of soda. We spend thousands of dollars on our food habits and plan our schedules around mealtimes. Needless to say, eating plays a huge role in our daily lives and well-beings. Not only does the act of eating dictate our day-to-day, the food industry dictates our country's food policy and laws that govern what we eat. When you consider that the regulations on seed production, farming methods, packaging, and distribution are all tightly controlled by the companies that reap the monetary benefits, it's a a lot to chew on. The deep roots of the food industry's campaign contributions has left the American people with a minority say in what they eat.
The four biggest meat companies control a vast swath of production in the U.S. Tyson Foods is the world's largest chicken and red meat provider, controlling 27 percent of all meat and poultry sales in the U.S., according to Source Watch. Pork producer Smithfield Foods owns 26 percent of the U.S. pork market, while Cargill holds the spot of second largest meat processing company in the U.S., after Tyson.
All of these companies have a lot of power to maintain and they do it with campaign contributions. Tyson topped the list of food industry campaign contributors in the 2009-2010 campaign cycle, giving a total of $209,650 and spending over $2.5 million on lobbying efforts, as reported by Open Secrets. Similarly, Smithfield gave $149,740 and invested $1.28 in lobbying. The American Meat Institute, representing meat companies like Tyson and Smithfield, also topped the list, giving $188,150 and hitting lobbying totals of $263,000.
These astronomical donations go toward ensuring consumers are left unaware when they buy a chicken breast or pork loin. Genetically-modified food does not currently need to be labeled, nor does meat produced from cloned animals. The industry is paying to make sure elected officials care more about the profit margins on cloned meat and genetically-modified seeds than the health and safety of the public. "The beef industry is embedded in the Dept. of Agriculture and that's why the Dept. of Agriculture doesn't even have the authority to recall meat that's been tainted by E.coli," commented Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, in response to the 2010 Supreme Court decision -to allow unlimited political spending by corporations. Pollan is referring to the fact that the USDA cannot shut down tainted meat production plants. Thorough inspections of meat plants are essentially nonexistent, leaving approximately 50 percent of cow carcasses tainted with E. coli.
Consumer Reports estimates that 70 percent of grocery store chickens are infected and the Center for Science in the Public Interest asserts that 90 percent of turkeys are as well. Barbara Kowalcyk knows too-well the dangers of E.coli in our food. Her two-year old son died within 12 days of being effected by a tainted hamburger. The meat wasn't recalled until 16 days after he died; Kowalcyk worked tirelessly to create a law requiring tainted production plants to be shut down. Though Kevin's Law was enacted in 2011, it is not enforced because the government won't fund the workforce needed to carry out the legislation.
Meat isn't the only industry whose power over farmers and consumers has spiraled out of control; monopoly of food production starts as early as the seed. Monsanto Co., the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seed, has made significant political contributions as well. The company has a history of donating heavily. These donations help to ensure that politicians will turn the other way when it comes to antitrust campaigns against the company. Indeed, the Justice Department during the Bush administration never filed a single antitrust case against any company.
According to the Washington Post, Monsanto owns 93 percent of soybean seed patents and 80 percent of corn, forcing farmers to rely on their seeds for a superior product - seeds whose prices have doubled over the past decade. Not only have they increased the cost of their seeds, Monsanto has also made a point of cracking down on small-time farmers that save and reuse their seeds; the company is notorious for suing them.
Monsanto has come under increased pressure during the Obama administration, according to the Washington Post; Monsanto-competitor DuPont brought a case against the company in 2009. Similarly, as of June 1, 83 plaintiffs, including the Center for Food Safety, were involved in bringing a suit against Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed. Unsurprisingly then, the Monsanto PAC nearly doubled its fundraising efforts between 2008 and 2010, jumping from $336,000 in 2008 to $658,000 in 2010, according to Open Secrets.
The effects of these contributions are as far-reaching as food is present in our lives. Because of the influence food corporations have over politicians, factory farming is allowed to grow bigger and bigger by the day. Cows are left to stand knee-deep in their own manure, while chickens die from overcrowding and turkeys are left to live without ever seeing the light of day. Not only are the results of factory farming on the animals used in the process absolutely repulsive, the damage to our own health is chilling. The desire to produce the most food in the least amount of time has led to horrendous working conditions for employees. Many go without breaks, water, shade or basic support from their employers, as documented in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. As many as 70 percent of workers on large animal farms come down with acute bronchitis, according to a 2001 report by Marc Schenker and Steven Kirkhorn. Twelve cases of workers dying from asphyxiation in manure pits were documented over a period of five years.
Livestock production and shipping generates 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2006 report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. This amount is more than all transportation (cars, ships and planes) combined. In a 2009 report by the World Watch Institute, that number was reported to be even higher -- 51 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Either way, the number is appalling.
"We've never had food companies this big and this powerful in our history," said Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation. We’ve never had effects so frightening, either.
Clean elections can help clean up the food industry. By providing public funding for campaigns, we ensure that elected officials need to listen to us and not to the demands of monster corporations.
Instead of relying on giants like Tyson and Monsanto to put them back in business, politicians will rely on our funding, forcing them to answer to our needs - the most elementary of which happen to be safe, nutritious and ethically-positive food.
Support food reform by voting for candidates that support clean elections legislation. Clean elections enables a greater diversity of candidates to run for public office - not just those that are wealthy enough to support a campaign. Once they are in office, they will be open to hearing and responding to your concerns - including the worry that you are not getting the best food for your money.
Not everyone can afford to buy organic vegetables and meats at local farmers markets. Even if you're on a budget, you can vote -- in fact, you can't afford not to.
Visit: nydemocracyproject.org to join the clean voters bloc and find out which candidates support clean elections legislation in your area your area. ◊◊◊
Tags: Food, Monsanto, Tyson Posted in Earth and Clean Elections, Health and Clean Elections | 1 Comment
The New York Democracy Project kicked off the lovely NY summer by representing clean elections at the Clearwater Festival. Clearwater's Great Hudson River Festival took place the weekend of June 18-19 and brought together thousands of activists to celebrate the river at Croton Point Park in Croton-on-the-Hudson. More than 100 musical acts played and the festival also featured storytellers, environmental education displays, boat exhibits and a Green Living Expo.
NYDP was lucky enough to have a table at the festival. We spent the weekend giving away our free cold-brewed Democracy Coffee and educated attendees about the benefits of clean elections. Nearly 200 people joined the Clean Elections Voting Bloc over the two days, saying to candidates and politicians, if you want our votes, you need to pledge your support for publicly funded campaigns. Thanks to those that talked with us there! We were also able to make many progressive connections and network with the thousands of other activists at the festival, all working together to better our state.◊◊◊
Posted in Updates | No Comments
March 11, 2011 was a rude awakening. The 9.0-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan was not only a reminder of nature’s power and the fragility of human life, but we were also left worrying and wondering about the relative hazards of our investment in nuclear power. At least two explosions rocked the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in the days following the disaster and partial meltdowns occurred in three of the reactors based there. Repercussions of the accident have yet to be fully revealed and the widespread evacuation of the area surrounding the plant is ongoing.
March 11 was also a test for the many nuclear power lobbyists in the U.S. -- a test to see if their millions in campaign contributions could withstand the weight of the augmented scrutiny of the industry occurring in the wake of the Fukushima accident. Criticisms of nuclear power were once again given credence by an horrific real-life example; anti-nuclear activism became frighteningly relevant.
Industry professionals and lobbyists, however, were quick to respond to the anti-nuclear climate, meeting with Congressional members within the first four days of the disaster to pacify lawmakers’ concerns, according to Businessweek. The executives sought to alleviate questions about the varied risks of nuclear power -- hazards which include problematic storage, transport and processing procedures of nuclear waste; disastrous human health consequences; environmental damage caused by uranium mining; constant threat of nuclear weapons and war; and the much-debated carbon output of the cycle.
“Representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group, and Exelon Corp., the biggest U.S. operator of nuclear reactors, briefed lawmakers and their staffs,” wrote Jim Snyder in Businessweek. “Their message was that U.S. plants can withstand disasters such as the earthquake and tsunami that crippled nuclear reactors in Japan and raised the threat of a catastrophic radiation leak.”
This meeting wasn’t the first time nuclear corporations had the ears of Congress. The industry has been paying for such attention for years with heavy campaign contributions and lobbying efforts.
According to the Middleboro Review, nuclear power companies have spent a collective $650 million on lobbying efforts and campaign contributions since 2000, and that money is widespread among members of Congress.
The Nuclear Energy Institute put the most money into government pressuring, spending $3.76 million in lobbying costs and $323,000 through its political action committee last year. The organization donated to a total of 164 different House and Senate candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Exelon, the country’s second-largest nuclear company, donated $515,000 during the 2009-2010 election cycle, reports Politico, paying particular attention to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who both received the maximum $10,000.
Similarly, Entergy gave $400,000 to Congressional races in the past two years, even donating $3,500 to Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a supposed skeptic of the industry. Florida Power & Light donations totaled $507,000 (almost all Florida House members took a cut), while Duke Energy gave $475,000 to Congressional races.
“I can’t even name the companies I’ve received checks from,” said House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), according to the Middleboror Review. “But, in my view, nuclear power is essential; we have to have it to meet our demand, that it’s an industry that over time has been safe.” Turns out Whitfield banked $4,000 from Duke, $2,000 from Exelon and another $2,000 from Southern Co.
Nuclear power has been steeped in controversy and debate since its inception and the accident at Fukushima has only raised more questions about U.S. safety regulations of its 104 nuclear plants, particularly those situated along fault lines like the Diablo Canyon plant in California owned by PG&E Corp.
However, with purchasing power like these corporations have, it is unfortunately no surprise that U.S. lawmakers have vowed to move forward with nuclear reactor construction, even in the face of the new concerns the accident has raised -- concerns that led Germany to promise an exit from nuclear power and China to suspend all power plant approvals.
Though nuclear power has been touted as a sustainable alternative energy, the industry is the most heavily subsidized in the energy sector and relies on government subsidies. In fact, a nuclear power plant costs around $7,500 per kilowatt to build, according to the Middleboro Review, and much of that money comes straight from the government. In 2005, the nuclear power industry was awarded $13 billion in government aid and in 2007 Congress approved a $20.5 billion loan guarantee.
Speaking of the unsustainable economics of nuclear energy on Democracy Now!, Dr. Helen Caldicott said: “The truth is...that there’s enough renewable technology now, right now, which is relatively cheap, to supply the whole of the U.S.'s needs by 2040 without any carbon and any nuclear. We just need to have the politicians to get out of the pockets of the nuclear companies, the coal companies, the oil companies, and start funding renewable energy. Why isn't there a solar panel on every single house in America, solar hot water systems, windmills everywhere?”
Perhaps the answer to Caldicott’s question lies in campaign donations.
If we want to make sure that America is getting the safest, cleanest, most sustainable energy for our money, we need to make sure that our politicians are listening to these demands. Politicians that run a clean elections campaign are not only more likely to be diversified thinkers, they are more likely to be interested in your concerns. Clean elections allows our lawmakers to run with publicly funded dollars instead of “gifts” from Duke Energy. By voting for politicians that believe in clean elections, you increase your shot at your voice being heard above the din of sponsored lobbyists.
In order to guarantee that safety regulations at nuclear power plants are thoroughly and fairly investigated on a regular basis, representatives need to stop depending on nuclear companies to get them elected. Make sure that scientists are briefing your politicians -- not industry sycophants. Learn more and join the Clean Elections Voting Bloc at http://www.nydemocracyproject.org.
Tags: Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, Fukushima, nuclear power Posted in Earth and Clean Elections | 1 Comment
By its third month, 2011 has already proven itself to be tumultuous. The beginning of the year brought the incipient democratic risings in the Middle East, which have now led to U.S. military actions in Libya, while March has seen the devastating Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami and nuclear disaster. World events have been so turbulent and profound that Americans have even found time to turn away from news of Charlie Sheen's antics. Sandwiched in between and continuing throughout these events is the labor rights struggle in the U.S., most notably stationed in Wisconsin.
On February 14, newly-elected Republican Governor Scott Walker announced his plans for the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill, legislation that purportedly sought to close a widening budget crisis in the state. The proposal outlined plans to remove collective bargaining rights from most public employees and mandated that public workers contribute more of their already hardscrabble salaries to their pensions and health care premiums. These draconian measures have precipitated the largest protests in Madison since the Vietnam War -- demonstrations that provoked the state's 14 Democratic senators to flee to Illinois in an attempt to disrupt the quorum needed to pass the bill.
By stripping the legislation's spending provisions, Republican politicians in the state were allowed to pass the bill without reaching quorum. On March 10 the bill was passed in the Wisconsin Assembly and was signed into law the next day by Governor Walker. Dane County officials were quick to react with lawsuits citing unconstitutionality, giving demonstrative support to Wisconsinites, if not hope.
This misguided and veiled attempt at balancing the budget has quickly become what Reuters called "a confrontation with unions that could be the biggest since then President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers nearly 30 years ago." Activists continue to demand collective bargaining rights, brandishing ever more unique protest signs. The signs have ranged from the outright ("Workers rights are human rights") to the sardonic ("Walker is a Weasel Not a Badger") to the worldly ("Egypt = 18 days; Wisconsin=??"). Perhaps the most telling of all the signs, however, was one that pleaded "Gov. Walker: Kick the Koch Habit."
Charles and David Koch are co-owners of Koch Industries, a Witchita, Kans.-based energy and consumer products giant whose exorbitant profits make it the second-largest privately-held company in the U.S. The brothers are each worth a reported $17.5 billion.
The Koch family donates millions each year to political activity, and in the past have contributed over $73 million to groups pushing climate change skepticism and misinformation, according to the Guardian and Greenpeace. Their most recent political experiment, though, appears to be a vehicle for anti-union fervor and they've elected Wisconsin Governor Walker to take the test drive.
Walker is a likely candidate to push Koch policies; according to the Wisconsin branch of Common Cause, the Koch brothers poured over $1 million into Scott Walker's 2010 gubernatorial campaign, in direct and indirect donations. The family also gave $400,000 to TV and radio ads supporting the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill. Without the support from the Koch family, Walker likely wouldn’t have a job, much less the solvency to support a full-frontal campaign against Wisconsin workers.
The Koch influence on Walker was made more transparent to the country when Buffalo's Daily Beast editor Ian Murphy made a call to the governor impersonating David Koch. In the phone call, Walker spoke candidly, revealing his "naked corporate agenda...bursting the 'budget crisis' storyline," as wrote The Progressive’s Elizabeth DiNovella. While Walker ignores the appeals of the Wisconsin citizens he was elected to serve, one ring from "David Koch" and he's ready to spill his guts.
"Koch Industries and other corporate citizens have legitimate interests in Wisconsin, but their demonstrated willingness to push large amounts of money into state politics has given them a dangerously outsized voice, one now demanding a return on its investments," wrote Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause (national).
Certainly the Koch brothers have enough money to spread their political antagonisms around the country. The New York Times reported that the donations by Koch Industries and its employees totaled over $2 million last election cycle. That number doubles what was given a year ago and 92 percent of it went to Republicans.
At least $22,000 of those millions went to Ohio governor John Kasich's campaign; Charles Koch and his wife each gave the maximum $11,000, reported Reuters. It’s no surprise then, after looking at these donation patterns, that Ohio is following in Wisconsin's anti-union footsteps.
Tim Philips, president of the Koch-supported and created nonprofit organization Americans for Prosperity, told the New York Times that his group is already "working with activists and state officials in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania to urge them to take similar steps to curtail union benefits or give public employees the power to opt out of unions entirely."
Surely, just because the Koch brothers are successful businessmen doesn't give them the right to dictate our country's politics to such an inordinate extent. Help guarantee your voice in politics by getting your friends to becoming part of the Clean Election Voting Bloc. Clean elections legislation would provide political candidates with the option of full publicly funded financing, relieving corporate donations and the consequent pressure on politicians to serve these conglomerates. This levels the political ground by opening public office up to a greater diversity of candidates and also ensures that citizens' concerns are heard.
As Koch impersonator Ian Murphy pointed out, union carpenters may have built the chairs at the table for collective bargaining, but they won't be allowed to sit down at it unless they've made millions in campaign contributions -- or until nation-wide clean elections legislation is a reality. Make sure the Koch brothers can't eliminate collective bargaining in any more states, including New York, by getting your friends to join the Clean Elections Voting Bloc.
-Carly Willsie
Tags: Koch, Union Posted in Economy and Clean Elections | 3 Comments
Posted in Democracy and Clean Elections | No Comments
