webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

corybooker bak

<div>corybooker519</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>promote primary on bring it kavanaugh spartacus moment</div><div>
</div><div>capt bak 519</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>the conv 519</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>For the first time, most major Democratic presidential contenders are talking about whether the U.S. government should consider paying reparations to the descendants of African Americans who were enslaved and suffered from large-scale racial discrimination.</div><div>
</div><div>At least three of these candidates, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, former San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, support the creation of a commission that would study the impact of slavery and the Jim Crow discrimination against black Americans that continued after emancipation. The commission would make recommendations about how to compensate black Americans for those injustices.</div><div>
</div><div>The question of whether the U.S. government should compensate the descendants of enslaved and oppressed African Americans has never gotten this much attention. Even former President Barack Obama deflected this concept while he was in the White House.</div><div>
</div><div>As a sociologist who has researched systemic racism and reparations for decades, I can explain why this issue appears to be gaining traction.</div><div>
</div><div>[vid] Booker explained in an interview with ‘The Root’ why he supports reparations for African Americans.]</div><div>
</div><div>Long history</div><div>A major justification for the government paying reparations directly to individuals or establishing other forms of compensation, such as investment in majority-black communities, lies in the harsh reality of the labor stolen from millions of enslaved people from 1619 to 1865. That justification extends to many more millions severely oppressed for the next century and a half – whether through racist segregation laws or informal discrimination authorities did nothing to stop.</div><div>
</div><div>Since 1619, when the first enslaved Africans were taken to Jamestown, Virginia, the oppression of black people by whites has been embedded in America’s economic, political, educational and other institutions.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>An 18th-century newspaper ad announcing the sale of ‘250 fine healthy negroes.’&nbsp;</div><div>AP Photo</div><div>Slavery lasted for nearly 250 years, about 60% of U.S. history, including Colonial times. Counting the nearly century-long Jim Crow segregation of African Americans, officially sanctioned racial oppression encompassed more than 80% of U.S. history to date.</div><div>
</div><div>The political scientist Thomas Craemer calculated the hours worked by enslaved black workers between 1776 and the official end of slavery. He estimates this uncompensated labor totaled between US$5.9 and $14.2 trillion in current dollars.</div><div>
</div><div>As I detailed in my book “Racist America,” trillions more in wealth was effectively stolen from black Americans not just because of enslavement prior to 1776 but during the Jim Crow era through employment discrimination and decades of bureaucratic finagling that caused them to lose farmland.</div><div>
</div><div>I estimate that the total cost to black Americans over four centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws and more contemporary discrimination to be in the $10-$20 trillion range. That’s potentially as big as the nation’s annual economic output.</div><div>
</div><div>Wealth accumulation</div><div>Georgetown University students recently voted in favor of a new “reconciliation fee” they would pay that would fund reparations to the descendants of 272 enslaved people sold in the 19th century to pay off the school’s debts.</div><div>
</div><div>Opponents of this reparations effort, which would require support from the university’s board to take effect, voiced two common arguments against it: Slavery happened too long ago and not all white Americans have slave-owning ancestors. Similar arguments are now commonplace.</div><div>
</div><div>The assumption that those debts are owed by and to people now deceased ignores all the money, property and other wealth white Americans alive today inherited from their forebears, including slave owners and many others responsible for depriving blacks of economic and educational opportunities through discrimination. The latter included white overseers, sheriffs and merchants.</div><div>
</div><div>Most whites can trace their roots back at least three generations, with many going back between four and 20 generations. That’s longer than most African Americans have had, at least officially, fairly equal socioeconomic opportunities – at most for two generations.</div><div>
</div><div>This argument also ignores the benefits white people reaped from the large-scale discrimination suffered by African Americans whose labor was underpaid or stolen for most of U.S. history. Millions of people, many still alive, endured brutal violence and economic discrimination under legal segregation.</div><div>
</div><div>What’s more, housing equity – what homeowners possess after subtracting their mortgages – is a main repository of U.S. family wealth. Philosopher Jonathan Kaplan and political scientist Andrew Valls argue that the decades-long housing discrimination that stopped most African Americans from building significant home equity justifies the payment of major reparations.</div><div>
</div><div>White-implemented government home-ownership programs after World War II, including mortgage programs for veterans, discriminated on a large scale against blacks. These government programs enabled many millions of white families to move into the middle class. The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these whites have since inherited wealth due to the ensuing growth in the value of that housing.</div><div>
</div><div>[pix</div><div>Blacks couldn’t buy homes after World War II in upwardly mobile communities like Levittown, Pennsylvania. AP Photo/Bill Ingraham</div><div>In contrast, black families usually endured housing discrimination after World War II. They were unable to obtain mortgages and were barred by restrictive covenants from buying homes in white areas where housing values rose.</div><div>
</div><div>Today’s wealth gap between white and black Americans is substantially the result of government-supported housing and employment discrimination. The median net worth of black families is less than 15% of that of white families, according to the Federal Reserve.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Congress responds</div><div>Lawmakers have been reckoning with this question to some degree for two decades. Members of the House have introduced the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act in every Congress since 1989, albeit without much support.</div><div>
</div><div>Both chambers of Congress passed resolutions that officially apologized for African American enslavement and centuries of black oppression, beginning with the House in 2008.</div><div>
</div><div>A year later, the Senate version included a disclaimer suggesting a lack of interest in paying reparations: “Nothing in this resolution (A) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States or (B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.”</div><div>
</div><div>This reluctance seems puzzling in light of the fact that the U.S. government successfully pressured postwar German governments to pay Holocaust survivors $927 million – worth $8.84 billion today – in compensation as part of the 1952 Luxembourg Agreement.</div><div>
</div><div>And after the passage of a 1998 reparations law, the U.S. government also modestly compensated some 82,000 Japanese Americans who were discriminatorily incarcerated as “enemy aliens” during World War II with $20,000 payments made to each surviving person who had been detained.</div><div>
</div><div>To be sure, broad public support for reparations has yet to materialize outside Congress either.</div><div>
</div><div>The latest polling indicates that most Americans still oppose paying reparations that would compensate African Americans for the centuries of life-shortening racial discrimination and exploitation they and their ancestors endured.</div><div>
</div><div>More diversity</div><div>Perhaps the best explanation for why Democrats angling for the presidency increasingly support reparations is simple.</div><div>
</div><div>It’s their base.</div><div>
</div><div>Nearly half of voters who cast ballots in 2016 Democratic primaries were nonwhite, and Congress is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before.</div><div>
</div><div>The growing importance of black, Latino and Asian American voters and leaders reflects the dramatic demographic changes underway in the U.S. Americans of color are now a majority in California, Texas, Hawaii, New Mexico and the District of Columbia.</div><div>
</div><div>By the 2020s, whites are likely to become a minority in Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New York and New Jersey.</div><div>
</div><div>By the 2040s whites will likely be a minority overall, and soon thereafter most voters will be people of color</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>https://thehill.com/regulation/333610-dems-plot-to-overturn-regulatory-repeal-law</div><div>
</div><div>Democrats are taking aim at President Trump’s power to roll back regulations.</div><div>The Sunset the CRA and Restore American Protections (SCRAP) Act introduced Tuesday by Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) would eliminate the law that Trump and Republican lawmakers have used to repeal more than a dozen Obama-era regulations. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is backing identical legislation in the House.</div><div>
</div><div>The Congressional Review Act (CRA) makes it easier for lawmakers to repeal regulations they disapprove of from the executive branch. Under the 1996 law, Congress only needs a simple majority to rollback recently issued regulations. Federal agencies are also blocked from publishing similar rules in the future.</div><div>
</div><div>The SCRAP Act would not only prevent Republicans from using this law to repeal future regulations, but it would also allow federal agencies to reinstate rules that have already been struck down under the CRA.</div><div>
</div><div>Before Trump, the CRA had only been successfully used once, in 2001, to repeal a Clinton-era labor rule.</div><div>
</div><div>Since then, Republicans have turned to the CRA to repeal 14 Obama-era regulations, hoisting the relatively obscure law into the limelight.</div><div>
</div><div>The rules overturned include environmental regulations like the Interior Department’s stream protection rule, internet regulations, financial rules, healthcare rules, education rules and gun restrictions.</div><div>
</div><div>Democrats warn Republicans are abusing their authority under the law by rolling back so many regulations.</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s like using a sledgehammer when a chisel is needed,” Udall said.</div><div>
</div><div>“The CRA never should have been passed into law, and it’s past time to repeal it,” he added.</div><div>
</div><div>The bill stands no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled Congress, but it is something Democrats could someday return to in the majority.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Robert Weissman, president of the left-leaning Public Citizen, called Republicans’ use of the CRA a “corporate payback scheme.”</div><div>
</div><div>“If there was any doubt before, it’s now certain that the CRA must go,” he said.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.dcreport.org/2017/11/20/how-trump-and-congress-are-erasing-the-last-20-years/</div><div>
</div><div>They’re Using an Obscure 1990s Law to Wipe Out Regulations Protecting Citizens and the Environment</div><div>By Jillian S. Ambroz</div><div>
</div><div>The Republicans of the 115th Congress and Trump have not accomplished much in the way of landmark legislation this year, unless you count overturning President Barack Obama’s achievements. And on that front, they’ve been prolific.</div><div>
</div><div>In Trump’s first four months of office, he and Congress have completely eliminated 14 rules issued by Obama—rules ranging from things like protecting Americans from coal waste in drinking water to blocking individuals with severe mental illness from buying firearms—using the Congressional Review Act.</div><div>
</div><div>And lest you think that headache of a legislation that had only been wielded once in 21 years before now might be going away anytime soon, think again.</div><div>
</div><div>Congress has targeted at least 31 rules in just 11 months, including the ones that have been nullified already, according to a report prepared by former senior staff member of the Congressional Research Service, Curtis W. Copeland. Those that have not been disapproved have been introduced to the House and await further action.</div><div>
</div><div>It’s not enough to just remove the rules, this Republican-led Congress and Trump want to nullify these acts completely, as if they never took place.</div><div>
</div><div>To do that requires a joint resolution by a simple majority in each house of Congress, which is easy for this current legislative branch. After 60 legislative days, Trump can sign the resolution into law and nullify the previous rule.</div><div>
</div><div>But once undone, it’s not easy to reinstate a rule removed by the Congressional Review Act, which is written so that essentially a new law is required to reinstate a new or similar rule like the one that was removed by it. And that is how people like influential ex-White House strategist Steve Bannon and pollution advocate Myron Ebell, who was in charge of the blueprint for the transition and transformation of the Environmental Protection Agency, crafted this deregulation regime that could take years to undo once Trump leaves office.</div><div>
</div><div>Bannon once said the goal of the Trump presidency is the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”</div><div>
</div><div>ACTION BOX/What You Can Do About It</div><div>
</div><div>Contact the White House and tell Trump using the Congressional Review Act and undoing these regulations is harmful to the American people. Call 202-456-1111, reach him on Twitter or email.</div><div>
</div><div>Contact Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) by phone at 202-225-3031, email, Facebook or Twitter. Contact Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)by phone at 202-224-2541, email, Facebook or Twitter.</div><div>
</div><div>As always, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to stop using the CRA to roll back safeguards for the American public.</div><div>
</div><div>The Congressional Review Act was part of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.</div><div>
</div><div>Before Trump took office, the Congressional Review Act was only used once before when the 107th Congress overturned a rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The rule addressed ergonomic injuries in the workplace.</div><div>
</div><div>Here are just a few of the rules Congress and Trump have overturned:</div><div>
</div><div>Oil Company Foreign Payment Disclosure Rule: Forced oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments.</div><div>The Stream Protection Rule: Enforced regulations on coal mine operators to protect streams and other water sources from coal waste.</div><div>Workplace Injuries Rule: Required employers to maintain accurate records of serious workplace injuries and illnesses for up to five years.</div><div>Gun Control Amendment: Required the Social Security Administration to provide instant information to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System on individuals meeting certain criteria, including severe mental health issues, that would prevent them from being able to purchase a firearm.</div><div>“Time and time again, Republicans have abused the Congressional Review Act to appease the extreme right wing of their party and ensure giveaways to corporate special interests,” top Senate Democrat&nbsp; Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a Politicoarticle.</div><div>
</div><div>It was thought there was a finite window for the Congress and Trump to employ the Congressional Review Act, which was previously considered a vehicle to undo so-called “Midnight Regulations” of an outgoing administration. The consensus was Obama actions only back to 2016 could be undone. That may not be the case. Technically, Congress can go back over unsubmitted agency rules, too—all the way back to 1996—and belatedly submit them&nbsp; for disapproval. Thousands of rules and regulations could be up for disapproval.</div><div>
</div><div>In May, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) introduced a bill to repeal the Congressional Review Act. It’s unlikely the Republican-led Congress will give up its most powerful tool anytime soon. At least not before the 116thCongress is sworn in.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>But identity politics, like social issues, can be exploited to push a Wall Street agenda. There may be no better example of that than the New Jersey senatorial candidacy of Cory Booker, who is both African American and gay – and who is a former Wall Streeter who stridently defends even that community’s worst excesses. If Booker replaces Robert Menendez, as appears likely, he is far less likely to defend the public’s economic rights against corporate pillagers. alternet</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;=</div><div>
</div><div>Our list of the 10 candidates who received the highest percentage of the money from elite donors includes many candidates from wealthy states, and nationally-known candidates like Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as well as new members who won high-profile races in 2014 like Sens. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, andTom Cotton, R-Ark.</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/04/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-in-2014-mega-donors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00035267&cycle=2014</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>2013 - 2014 Total Receipts:<span style="white-space:pre"> </span> $17,718,139</div><div>2013 - 2014 Total Spent:<span style="white-space:pre"> </span> $16,871,163</div><div>Debts:<span style="white-space:pre"> </span> $5,266</div><div>Last Report:<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Wednesday, December 31, 2014</div><div>Top 5 Contributors, 2013 - 2014</div><div>Contributor<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Total<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Indivs<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>PACs</div><div>Paul, Weiss et al<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$149,300<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$149,300<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$0</div><div>NorPAC<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$138,371<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$133,544<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$4,827</div><div>Sullivan & Cromwell<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$79,600<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$79,600<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$0</div><div>DLA Piper<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$74,400<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$54,400<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$20,000</div><div>Gibbons PC<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$72,800<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$67,800<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$5,000</div><div>...view more data</div><div>Top 5 Industries, 2013 - 2014</div><div>Industry<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Total<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Indivs<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>PACs</div><div>Lawyers/Law Firms<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,984,770<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,837,470<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$147,300</div><div>Securities & Investment<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,950,570<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,899,070<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$51,500</div><div>Real Estate<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$977,045<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$951,045<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$26,000</div><div>TV/Movies/Music<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$659,800<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$589,700<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$70,100</div><div>Business Services<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$406,235<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$401,235<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$5,000</div><div>...view more data</div><div>Source of Funds</div><div>
</div><div>legend<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Individual Contributions<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$15,340,868<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>(87%)</div><div>legend<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>PAC Contributions<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,880,427<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>(11%)</div><div>legend<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Candidate self-financing<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>(0%)</div><div>legend<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Other<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$496,844<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>(3%)</div><div>NOTE:</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>ears of cultivating relationships with Republican lawmakers and supporting their campaign committees financially may begin to pay off tomorrow, as the GOP now controls the Senate — and thus, the Environment and Public Works Committee — and some of the industry’s closest friends will lead the questioning of EPA officials at tomorrow’s hearing.</div><div>
</div><div>The committee will hold an oversight hearing Wednesday morning to discuss proposed carbon dioxide regulations for American power plants. The rules, announced last year by the EPA, would expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over big-carbon emitting industries. But those industries are not taking the proposed move lightly, and the affected industries are influential ones in Washington.</div><div>
</div><div>Wednesday’s hearing is one battle in a larger war between the Republican-controlled Congress and President Obama on environmental policy. After winning control of the Senate in November, Republicans vowed to fight the President’s agenda to address climate change. Senate Republicans don’t appear to have the ability to completely repeal the EPA rules, but they have vowed to undermine and defund the ability of the EPA to administer those rules.</div><div>
</div><div>The proposed EPA rules, announced in June, will cut carbon dioxide production from power plants and the power sector to 30 percent below 2005 levels. According to an overview published on the EPA website when the rules were first rolled out, power plants are the biggest source of carbon emissions in the country, accounting for roughly a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The plan would have an impact on health and quality of life issues as well: The EPA says that the rules would cut smog pollution by 25 percent, save $55 billion in health care costs, prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths, and cut asthma attacks for children.</div><div>
</div><div>The rules would require compliance from the states as well, and the varying levels of cooperation seem to reflect the polarized nature of American politics on the issue in general. Two states that rely heavily on coal power plants, Wyoming and Montana, have adopted different stances on the EPA policies. The state with the Democratic governor, Montana, is embracing compliance with the regulations. The state with the Republican governor, Wyoming, has rejected the rules.</div><div>
</div><div>As for money, the difference between giving to Republicans and Democrats on the committee illustrates a contrast between major carbon-based energy industries and the environmental advocacy groups.</div><div>
</div><div>For the Senate Energy and Public Works committee overall, the oil and gas industryand electric utilities industry both make a strong showing. As of late last year, $2.7 million had been donated in the 2014 cycle by the oil and gas industry to then-committee members, making it the tenth biggest donor industry to the committee. Republicans received a full 79 percent of those contributions. Electric utilities came in 19th among donors to the committee, giving $1.7 million with 55 percent going to Democrats. The environmental industry, made up of advocacy groups like theLeague of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, didn’t make the committee’s top 20 donors.</div><div>
</div><div>The chair of the committee, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has rejected the idea that humans are responsible for changes to the planet’s climate as recently as January, received more money from the oil/gas and electric utilities industries than any other industries. Oil and gas gave $556,700 to the senator’s campaign committee and leadership PAC from 2009 to 2014, making it his biggest industry donor. The electric utilities industry dropped $278,000 into his accounts during that same time, ranking second.</div><div>
</div><div>Three of Inhofe’s top four donors in that period were major energy companies that may face repercussions if the EPA tightens its grip on carbon emissions. At the top of the list, Koch Industries employees and PACs donated $45,200, and lobbyists hired by the company donated $9,430. Honeywell came in second with individuals and PACs donating $45,000, while Honeywell lobbyists donated $15,500. Inhofe’s fourth biggest donor was Valero Energy, which donated $40,000 through its PAC.</div><div>
</div><div>The other Republicans on the committee received a considerable sum from the two industries as well. Virtually all of the ten other Republicans had oil and gas make their top 20 donor industry lists. At least five had the electric utilities industry make that list. The biggest oil and gas recipient in the committee was Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) with $694,650 coming from the industry. The biggest electric utilities industry recipient was Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who received $322,250 from the industry.</div><div>
</div><div>On the minority side of the committee, the oil and gas industry didn’t crack the top 20 for a single current member. The electric utilities industry made it onto the top 20 industries list for Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) , Ben Cardin (D-Md.) , and Cory Booker(D-N.J.), with $155,100, $124,000, and $168,138, respectively. The environment industry did make the top 20 for five of the nine Senators caucusing with the Democratic party, including ranking Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). No Republicans on the committee had the environmental industry on their top 20 industry donor list.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>5/15</div><div>
</div><div>say it ain't so</div><div>
</div><div>hile writing that series, I found other examples of how the ALEC/Edison anti-net metering resolution is being used in political channels, particularly among those that purport to represent black people’s best interests. The National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL), for instance, also passed a similar resolution during its latest annual legislative conference. The resolution carries some of the same basic language as the ALEC version (ALEC, which is short for American Legislative Exchange Council, focuses on state legislators).</div><div>
</div><div>The chair of NBCSL’s Transportation and Environment committee, Florida State Rep. Joseph Gibbons, wrote an op-ed recently making the same claim that homes that generate electricity from their own solar energy equipment will mean financial burdens passed on to non-solar, African-American households. His argument was imported to Wisconsin, where another African-American state legislator, Sen. Lena C. Taylor, published it as a criticism of policies passed by Milwaukee’s city council to help expand solar net metering.</div><div>
</div><div>And it’s not just African-American politicians who are tripping over this. Monica Martinez, a former Michigan Public Service Commissioner, also wrote an op-ed that’s been circulating with the same ideas about raising energy rates, except for Latino households. (It was submitted to Grist to print. We turned it down.)</div><div>
</div><div>So what’s up with this? What is it about making it easier for Americans to transition to cleaner energy that some black and Latino politicians are just not getting?</div><div>
</div><div>There’s a few things to remember here when considering those questions:</div><div>
</div><div>One, there’s nothing unique about black and Latino policymakers that makes them allergic to clean energy policies. There are plenty of white policymakers who do the same, and they’re financially and politically backed by the same entities: utility companies, the fossil fuel industry, ALEC and similar cohorts.</div><div>
</div><div>Of the electric utility lobby’s top twenty donor recipients in Congress in 2014, only two are people of color, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2012, it was just Clyburn and Obama; in 2010, it was Clyburn alone. Of Edison Electric’s top 10 donor recipientsin Congress, again, it’s just Clyburn. You might be thinking, “Somebody needs to holla at Clyburn.” That’s fine. Just so long as somebody also hollas at all the other non-Clyburn, non-black Congress members getting Edison and utility money as well.</div><div>
</div><div>The second thing to remember is that not all black lawmakers oppose net metering. Plenty of black organizations, including the NAACP, know better, as domost black Americans. And there are many black lawmakers also committed to expanding clean energy. I covered the Congressional Black Caucus’s legislative conference last year and saw the bulk of them rise to applause when EPA Chief Gina McCarthy made a surprise visit to announce her clean energy plans. At this year’s conference, Congressman Keith Ellison accepted a challenge from the Hip Hop Caucus to work to stop Congressional Black Caucus members from accepting fossil fuel money.</div><div>
</div><div>That being said, there seems to be another reason why black lawmakers are taking their cues from the fossil fuel industry on energy: Green groups and clean energy companies don’t appear to be reaching out to black politicians as aggressively as their fossil-fuel counterparts.</div><div>
</div><div>When you look at the advisory boards and funders of those associations that represent black public officials, you see a whole bunch of corporations of every stripe, including a whole bunch of polluters:</div><div>
</div><div>The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s corporate advisory board has Duke Energy, which is fighting solar in North Carolina, and Exelon, a nuclear energy giant that solar advocates at DC Solar United Neighborhoods are fighting over the company’s proposed merger with DC utility PEPCO.</div><div>The CBC Foundation’s 2012 Annual report lists among its top donors Exxon Mobil, Walmart, McDonald’s, American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, Duke Energy and General Electric.</div><div>The list of member corporations for the National Black Caucus of State Legislators includes a whole slew of fossil fuel utility and energy companies, including Edison Electric.</div><div>The National Organization of Black County Elected Officials held its annual conference in April, with top sponsorship from Edison and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.</div><div>But who is at these tables to counter these fossil fuel companies? You’d be hard-pressed to find the names of any clean energy companies, major green NGOs, or environmental foundations on any of those lists above.</div><div>
</div><div>All of those groups also get funding and have board representation from foundations that deal with fighting poverty and poor health. But they are far outnumbered by the representation of fossil fuel companies, which seem to only bring up black health and poverty at their own convenience. When it comes to solar energy, they too often are bringing them up with misleading information.</div><div>
</div><div>It would be great if environmental justice organizations were at these tables, but they are already overwhelmed with their work in grassroots communities. Lobbying “grasstops” organizations like National Policy Alliance is mostly outside their bailiwicks, but they don’t have the funding to take it on even if they wanted to. The major green NGOs and foundations should be at these tables, but to do that, the green NGOs need the kinds of staffs that have people who can be most effective in these policy talks.</div><div>
</div><div>This is why diversity matters. The question for major environmental groups is whether they know the issues of African-American communities well enough to even approach tables like the National Policy Alliance. Are the green groups participating in the conferences and confabs where African-American political issues are being discussed and prioritized?</div><div>
</div><div>According to the Green 2.0 report, a comprehensive study on diversity among environmentalists released over the summer, this is one of the green organizations’ biggest weaknesses. The report found that “few of the organizations studied collaborate with ethnic minority or low-income institutions or groups,” and that they “are less likely to collaborate with low-income organizations than with ethnic minority organizations.” And yet the fossil fuel industry seems to have no problems making inroads with organizations that represent both low-income households and communities of color.</div><div>
</div><div>The green NGOs will often say they are not funded to do that kind of outreach. If that’s the case, then I see what environmental justice guru Robert Bullard meant when he recently made the case for diversifying funding for green causes. Wrote Bullard, shortly after the People’s Climate March:</div><div>
</div><div>This “call for funding diversity” must not be limited solely to grassroots community groups and environmental and climate justice leaders. Clearly, we need our mainstream environmental organization friends and allies in the philanthropic community who supported the People’s Climate March to join us in supporting the recommendations for diversifying funding and building an infrastructure of “grassroots” efforts, ethnic-based networks, and regional environmental and climate initiatives—better known as the Climate Justice Movement.</div><div>
</div><div>Without diverse funding and diverse staffing, the green movement will continue to find it difficult to get through to black lawmakers, whom the fossil fuel companies have no qualms about engaging. The Green 2.0 report offers recommendations for resolving these diversity problems, and Green 2.0’s partnership last week with Guidestar, the organization that collects information on other nonprofits nationally, should go a long way in helping track progress there. But until more is done here, I expect more resolutions like the one on net metering to continue finding easy passageways to the domains of black elected officials.</div><div>
</div><div>Want more on net metering? Read this next: Black lawmakers push back against coal utilities’ new trick.</div><div>
</div><div>==</div>