Woodward & McDowell

prop 87, 47, 167

Woodward & McDowell is a political public relations firm that works on behalf of the nation's top corporations to help them do "grassroots" organizing and push through ballot measures. Clients include theCalifornia Chamber of Commerce, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, ConocoPhillips, the Western States Petroleum Association. It promotes itself as a "ballot measure and issue advocacy" firm.[1][2]

Woodward & McDowell has assisted the tobacco industry in defeating measures designed to safeguard public health.

Contents

[hide]

* 1 Helping the tobacco industry defeat clean indoor air law

   * 2 SourceWatch resources

   * 3 External resources

   * 4 Contact

   * 5 References

Helping the tobacco industry defeat clean indoor air law

Woodward & McDowell helped the tobacco industry defeat Proposition 5, the California Clean Indoor Air Act of 1978, which was the first attempt in the U.S. to pass a statewide clean indoor air law using the initiative process. Proposition 5 would have required smoking and no-smoking sections in workplaces, public places, and restaurants. The initiative petitions were circulated in late 1977 and early 1978, and the initiative was voted on in the November 1978 election. Brown and Williamson, working with the other tobacco companies, played a major role in defeating Proposition 5. To fight measure, the tobacco companies formed a front group called Californians for Common Sense, and hired Woodward & McDowell to manage the campaign to defeat Proposition 5.[3][4]

The campaign plan to defeat Proposition 5 that Woodward & McDowell created for the tobacco industry emphasized the need to focus away from health and on to the idea of governmental intrusion into individual rights.[5] A 1978 Brown & Williamson memo commenting on bills in California to regulate indoor smoking reported that, "The industry is getting professional advice to avoid the confrontation issues of smoker's health and nonsmoker's health. Instead Woodward & McDowell are saying stick exclusively to a campaign built around arrest, expensive walls, added tax costs, fines, forced segregation and adult choice and democracy of the market place."[6][7]

SourceWatch resources

* AB 32 Implementation Group

   * Astroturf

   * Front groups

   * Tobacco industry public relations strategies

External resources

Contact

Woodward & McDowell

Burlingame Office

111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406

Burlingame, California 94010

Phone: 650.340.0470

Fax: 650.340.1740

References

1. ↑ Woodward & McDowell Woodward & McDowell Web page (home page), accessed February 12, 2010

  2. ↑ Woodward & McDowell Past Clients Web page, accessed February 12, 2010

  3. ↑ Arthur J. Stevens, Lorillard No title Letter. 1 page. January 17, 1979. Bates No. 3622697

  4. ↑ Stanton A. Glantz, et al. The Cigarette Papers Chapter 10: Environmental Tobacco Smoke and the Nonsmokers' Rights Movement, Page 417, 420 and 421, 19998, University of California Press

  5. ↑ J.S. Stockdale CAMPAIGN PLAN PREPARED FOR THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE BY WOODWARD AND MCDOWELL, Report. 5 pp. August 25, 1977. Bates No. 2024372962/296

  6. ↑ David Tannenbaum Buying Votes, Buying Friends:Tobacco industry political influence Multinational Monitor, Wednesday, July 1 1998

  7. ↑ Ernest Pepples, Brown & Williamson ETTER CONCERNING CALIFORNIA STRATEGY PREPARED BY LEGAL COUNSEL TO TOBACCO COMPANY RENDERING LEGAL ADVICE TO TI EMPLOYEE AND COPIED TO TOBACCO COMPANY EMPLOYEES AND IN-HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL TO TOBACCO COMPANIES, 2 pages, February 21, 1978. R.J. Reynolds Bates No. 513884432/4433

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Woodward_%26_McDowell"

Categories: Stubs | Tobaccowiki | Front groups portal | Tobacco industry strategy | Front groups | Corporate strategy | Public relations | Legislation | Environment | Public health | Secondhand smoke | Secondhand smoke strategy

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Woodward_%26_McDowell

==sw

The AB 32 Implementation Group is a coalition representing some of California's biggest carbon polluters that is working to alter the state's landmark law, AB 32, to curb global warming, while claiming to represent several "green" environmental companies that have since left the coalition after learning of its recent actions.

The AB32 Implementation Group says it represents a broad section of California interests focused on global-warming regulations. The group is being managed by a large public relations firm, Woodward & McDowell. It features photographs of white clouds and a field of flowers on its Web site. The group includes 22 of the state's biggest carbon polluters as ranked by the California Air Resources Board. The list of members includes oil refiners, cement manufacturers, chemical companies and trucking firms.

According to environmentalists and lawmakers, the AB 32 Implementation Committee has engaged in a steady campaign to undermine California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.^[1]

Sourcewatch resources

• People's Advocate
• Ted Costa
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)

External resources

Contact

• Web site: http://www.ab32ig.com/

References

1. ↑ Ali Winston, California Watch Green firms balk at coalition's lobbying effort, San Francisco Chronicle, January 18, 2010

...

Business group loses ‘green’ members in global-warming fight

January 16, 2010 | Ali Winston

An organization representing some of California’s biggest carbon polluters is working to alter the state’s global warming law, while claiming to represent several “green” environmental companies that have since left the coalition after learning of its recent actions.

The coalition, calling itself the AB 32 Implementation Group, says it represents a broad section of California interests focused on global warming regulations. The group, which is being managed by a large public relations firm, Woodward & McDowell, features photographs of white clouds and a field of flowers on its Web site.

But the organization itself includes 22 of the state's biggest carbon polluters   http://californiawatch.org/data/californias-top-greenhouse-gas-polluters-mapas ranked by the state Air Resources Board. Oil refiners, cement manufacturers, chemical companies, and trucking firms figure prominently. And, according to environmentalists and lawmakers, the Implementation Group has engaged in a steady campaign to undermine the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates a 25 percent reduction in the state’s emissions by 2020.

California Watch found companies on the Implementation Group’s membership list that no longer exist or whose executives were surprised to learn of the group’s efforts to alter the global warming law. Many of these companies are environmental-technology firms that had added a green luster to the Implementation Group’s big-business coalition, which includes more than 180 companies and associations.

The PR firm running the group has a history of clashing with environmentalists. In the 1990s, Burlingame-based Woodward & McDowell helped defeat Proposition 128, dubbed “Big Green,” which mandated sweeping changes to environmental laws. Company associate Dave Fogarty said his firm helped the Implementation Group draft its mission statement and manages its public image, but they have promoted a variety of issues, from school bonds to transportation funding, over the years....

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AB_32_Implementation_Group"

Categories: Stubs | Environment | Global warming | Politics (U.S.)

==

																					Past Clients Over the past three decades, W&M has worked with hundreds of organizations, companies, and industries on a multitude of issues. Here’s a sampling of them…						Organizations Air Transport Association American Electronics Association American Institute of Architects, California American Trucking Association Arizona Education Association Associated General Contractors of California Associated Oregon Industries Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies Association of California School Administrators Association of California Water Agencies Association of Oregon Food Industries California – Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers California Aerospace Alliance California Air Resources Board California Alliance for Jobs California Association of Highway Patrolmen California Association of Realtors California Bankers Association California Beer & Beverage Distributors California Building Industry Association California Business Properties Association California Business Roundtable California Chamber of Commerce California Community Colleges California Congress of Seniors California Correctional Peace Officers Association California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance California Dental Association California Farm Bureau California Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) California Federation of Teachers California Forestry Association California Grocers Association California Health Care Association California Judges Association California Manufacturers and Technology Association California Medical Association California Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) California Park and Recreation Society California Retailers Association California School Boards Association California School Employees Association California State Association of Counties California State Automobile Association California State Council of Laborers California State Employees Association California State Sheriffs’ Association California State University System California Taxpayers’ Association California Teachers Association California Teamsters Public Affairs Council California Transit Association California Trucking Association California Women for Agriculture Californians for Better Transportation CASH Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California Consumer Attorneys of California CropLife America Discus EdVoice Grocery Manufacturers Association of America Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association League of California Cities League of Women Voters of California Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Montana Mining Association National Association of Convenience Stores National Association of Home Builders National Association of Manufacturers National Association of Realtors National Federation of Independent Business Nevada Education Association Oregon Draymen and Warehousemen's Association Oregon Motor Transport Association Oregon Retail Council Oregon Trucking Association Oregon Wheat Growers Association Pala Band of Mission Indians Peace Officers Research Association of California Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Pechanga Tribal Council Personal Insurance Federation Responsible Development Council of Washington State Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians Seattle Master Builders Association Service Employees International Union State Building and Construction Trades Council of California The Wine Institute Transportation California U.S. Chamber of Commerce United Auburn Indian Community University of California Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians West Basin Municipal Water District Western Growers Association Western States Petroleum Association		Corporations AeCom Aera Energy Allstate Altria Anheuser-Busch AT&T Baldwin Company Bank of America Boeing Boise Cascade Boyle Engineering BP Caliber Systems Catellus Development CH2M Hill ChevronTexaco CNF Transportation Conoco Philips Consolidated Freightways Container Corporation of America Coors Del Monte Diageo Dow Chemical DowElanco DuPont Ernest and Julio Gallo ExxonMobil Farmers Insurance Fieldstone Foster Farms Georgia Pacific Granite Construction Great Western Financial HDR, Inc Hershey Chocolate Herzog Contracting Hewlett-Packard Hughes Aircraft IBM Intel Jacobs/Sverdrup Kleinfelder, Inc. Lockheed Longs Drug Louisiana Pacific Miller Brewing Monsanto National Semiconductor Nestle Northrop Occidental Petroleum Pacific Gas and Electric Pacific Lumber Paramount Pictures Pardee Construction Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Phelps Dodge Placer Dome R. J. R. Nabisco Raleys Ralph’s Rhone Poulenc Roadway Express Rockwell Safeway Scientific Games Shamrock Foods, Inc. Shell Sierra Pacific Simplot Southern California Edison Southland State Farm Sunkist Growers T.Y. Lin International The Irvine Company The Walt Disney Company Tosco United Parcel Service Unocal Valent Valero Energy Washington Group International Wells Fargo Yellow Freight		Issues Air Courier and Cargo Issues Airport Regulations Airport Taxes Business Taxes Campaign Finance Reform Casino Gambling Class Size Reduction Dairy Production Development Education Bonds Education Reform Energy Engineering Environmental Regulations Ergonomic Regulations Food Safety Gas Taxes Government Contracting Government Spending Limits Growth Control Health Care Immigration Income Tax Reform Indian Gaming Infrastructure Insurance Reform Management/Labor Issues Medical Malpractice Pesticide Use Rail Transit Regulatory Streamlining Rent Control School Construction Split Roll Property Taxes State Budget Reform State Lotteries Telecommunications Tort Reform Transportation Bonds and Taxes Transportation Regulations Truck Safety Trucking Regulations Water Bonds Water Quality

Business group loses 'green' members in global-warming fight

BY ALI WINSTON, California Watch | Sunday, Jan 17 2010 03:00 AM

Last Updated Sunday, Jan 17 2010 03:00 AM

CALIFORNIA'S LARGEST GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTERS

The 100 largest CO2-emitting facilities in California, according to self-reported data for 2007 from the California Air Resources Board.

1. Chevron -- Richmond
2. Shell Oil -- Martinez
3. BP West Coast -- Carson
4. Chevron -- El Segundo
5. Dynegy -- Moss Landing

6. Sycamore -- Bakersfield

7. ExxonMobil -- Torrance
8. Valero -- Benicia

9. Sunrise Power -- Bakersfield

10. Tesoro -- Martinez
11. SoCal Edison/Mountainview -- Rosemead
12. La Paloma -- McKittrick
13. Cemex Black Mountain -- Victorville
14. LA Dept. Water & Power Haynes -- LA
15. ConocoPhillips Wilmington -- LA
16. Pastoria Energy/Calpine -- Folsom
17. ConocoPhillips -- Rodeo
18. Delta Energy/Calpine -- Folsom
19. High Desert Power Project -- Victorville
20. Searles Valley Minerals -- Trona

21. Aera Energy/Belridge -- Bakersfield

22. Kern River Cogen -- Bakersfield

23. AES Alamitos -- Long Beach
24. SMUD Cosumnes -- Sacramento
25. SDG&E Palomar -- San Diego
26. Metcalf Energy -- San Jose
27. Elk Hills Power -- Tupman
28. Midway-Sunset Cogen -- Fellows
29. CalPortland -- Mojave
30. Mitsubishi Cement -- Lucerne
31. Tesoro -- Wilmington
32. LA Dept. Water & Power Valley -- LA
33. Ultramar/Valero, Wilmington
34. ACE Cogeneration -- Trona
35. ConocoPhillips Carson -- Carson
36. AES -- Huntington Beach

37. Plains Exploration & Production -- Bakersfield

38. LA Dept. Water & Power Scattergood -- LA
39. Burney Forest Products -- Burney
40. TXI Riverside Cement -- Oro Grande
41. National Cement -- Lebec
42. Lehigh SW Cement -- Cupertino
43. Turlock Irrigation/Walnut Energy -- Turlock
44. Air Products Hydrogen Plant -- Wilmington
45. Air Liquide Hydrogen Plant -- El Segundo
46. NRG Energy Encina -- Carlsbad
47. Dynegy South Bay -- Chula Vista

48. Occidental Elk Hills -- Bakersfield

49. Stockton CoGen -- Benicia
50. Air Products Hydrogen Plant -- Carson

51. Aera Energy MOCO D&E -- Bakersfield

52. RRI Energy Etiwanda -- Rancho Cucamonga

53. Big West of California -- Bakersfield

54. Lehigh SW Cement -- Tehachapi

55. Blythe Energy -- Blythe
56. Crocket Cogen -- Crockett
57. Cardinal Cogen -- Stanford
58. DTE Woodland Biomass Power -- Woodland
59. SMUD SPA -- Sacramento
60. CalPortland -- Colton
61. RRI Energy Ormond Beach -- Oxnard

62. Mt. Poso Cogen -- Bakersfield

63. Salinas River Cogen -- San Ardo

64. Mid-Set Cogen -- Bakersfield

65. Sargent Canyon Cogen -- San Ardo
66. Martinez Cogen -- Martinez
67. Lehigh SW Cement -- Redding
68. Coalinga Cogen -- Coalinga
69. PG&E Humboldt Bay -- Eureka

70. Berry Petroleum -- Bakersfield

71. RMC Cemex -- Davenport
72. Port of Stockton District Energy Facility -- Stockton
73. SMUD SCA -- Sacramento

74. Rio Bravo Jasmin -- Bakersfield

75. Rio Bravo Poso -- Bakersfield

76. Sierra Pacific Industries -- Quincy
77. RRI Energy Mandalay Inc. -- Oxnard
78. Mirant Potrero LLC -- San Francisco
79. U.S. Borax -- Boron
80. RRI Energy Coolwater -- Daggett
81. ExxonMobil SYU -- Santa Barbara
82. NRG Energy -- El Segundo
83. Procter & Gamble Paper Products -- Oxnard
84. Imperial Irrigation District -- El Centro
85. Berry Petroleum Co. Placerita -- Santa Clarita

86. Aera Energy LLC Lost Hills -- Bakersfield

87. BP West Coast Wilmington Calciner -- Wilmington
88. Aera Energy LLC Coalinga -- Coalinga
89. Air Products and Chemicals Inc. -- Martinez
90. Hanford L.P. GWF Cogeneration Plant -- Hanford
91. Calpine King City Cogen LLC -- King City
92. THUMS Long Beach Co. -- Long Beach
93. ConocoPhillips Santa Maria -- Arroyo Grande
94. Ontario Linerboard Mill -- Ontario

95. High Sierra Limited -- Bakersfield

96. CalEnergy Salton Sea 1-5 -- Calipatria
97. Modesto Irrigation District Woodland -- Modesto
98. AES Redondo Beach -- Redondo Beach
99. GWF Power Systems Nichols Road -- Bay Point
100. Geysers Power Company LLC Calp

Links

• MAP: Kern County is home to many top greenhouse gas polluters

• Check out California Watch's other investigations

An organization representing some of California's biggest carbon polluters is working to alter the state's global-warming law, while claiming to represent several "green" environmental companies that have since left the coalition after learning of its recent actions.

The coalition, calling itself the AB 32 Implementation Group, says it represents a broad section of California interests focused on global-warming regulations. The group, which is being managed by a large public relations firm, Woodward & McDowell, features photographs of white clouds and a field of flowers on its website.

But the organization itself includes 22 of the state's biggest carbon polluters as ranked by the state Air Resources Board. Oil refiners, cement manufacturers, chemical companies, and trucking firms figure prominently. And, according to environmentalists and lawmakers, the Implementation Group has engaged in a steady campaign to undermine the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates a 25 percent reduction in the state's emissions by 2020.

California Watch found companies on the Implementation Group's membership list that no longer exist or whose executives were surprised to learn of the group's efforts to alter the global-warming law. Many of these companies are environmental-technology firms that had added a green luster to the Implementation Group's big-business coalition, which includes more than 180 companies and associations.

The PR firm running the group has a history of clashing with environmentalists. In the 1990s, Burlingame-based Woodward & McDowell helped defeat Proposition 128, dubbed "Big Green," which mandated sweeping changes to environmental laws. Company associate Dave Fogarty said his firm helped the Implementation Group draft its mission statement and manages its public image, but they have promoted a variety of issues, from school bonds to transportation funding, over the years.

Environmentalists say the Implementation Group has yet to make major inroads into changing the law. But V. John White, the executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies and a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said the Implementation Group and its allies are "trying to create a political juggernaut they can use to beat CARB into the ground."

For the past several months, the powerful California Air Resources Board has been writing detailed regulations that will set into motion the state's global-warming law, signed with fanfare by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. The law leaves numerous important decisions to the board, including the details of a first-in-the-nation "cap-and-trade" system that would require big polluters to limit their emissions while giving financial incentives to companies that make improvements.

The Air Resources Board's final product could dramatically alter the bottom line for businesses in the state, and spur new industries designed to "capture," or clean up, global-warming emissions. While the board is writing these regulations, the Implementation Group has acted as the public face for its members while pressuring the board to lessen the burden on businesses. The board has multiple deadlines through 2011 to finalize the regulations.

TOP OFFICIALS' COMMENTS AT ODDS WITH GROUP'S NAME

Although the AB 32 Implementation Group says it wants "regulatory certainty" and wants to "ensure greenhouse-gas-emission reductions are achieved," a top official with the group has publicly supported legislative proposals that would delay the rollout of AB 32, citing potential harm to the economy.

In April 2008, Dorothy Rothrock, who is the co-chair of the Implementation Group and vice president of government affairs for the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, told a legislative hearing she favored a plan that involved suspending AB 32 for a year.

"We appreciate the Senate Republicans putting forth these ideas to help stimulate the economy," she said. "AB 32 in particular will add significant costs to manufacturing, particularly in the electricity side."

In an interview, Rothrock said her support for the suspension of AB 32 stemmed from her role as the vice president of the manufacturer's association, not her position with the Implementation Group. "There's a real difference between what I say as the vice president of CMTA and the co-chair of the Implementation Group," she said.

The chief sponsors of the Implementation Group are the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. One prominent member, the Western States Petroleum Association, is a trade organization for companies such as BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Tesoro and Valero.

Few groups are more active in monitoring the global-warming regulations than the Implementation Group. Since 2007, it has sent 41 letters to the Air Resources Board, the governor's office and local air quality districts. The most recent missive was sent Jan. 11, and complained about the board's proposed cap-and-trade system.

The group and its sponsors have questioned an economic-impact study downplaying the financial effect on businesses; complained about the fairness of $63 million in new fees imposed on large polluters; challenged the resources board in court for documentation of the board's spending; and questioned the board's authority to conduct a carbon-offset program.

Despite the organization's name, at least one member of the AB 32 Implementation Group said that "implementing" the global-warming law was not the group's actual goal.

"The title may be misleading," acknowledged James Duran, the legislative action chairman for the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and a member of the Implementation Group. The role of the group, Duran said, is "to provide a focused voice on how to ensure that business economic impact is quantified and minimized."

SOME GROUP MEMBERS NO LONGER EXIST

California Watch found five businesses listed as Implementation Group members that were unaware that a high-ranking member of the group had called for suspending AB 32. All five are "green" enterprises that would benefit directly from AB 32's emphasis on clean energy and sustainable practices.

"I knew that they had an agenda, but I didn't realize they were using people like me to further their goals," said Steve Coyle, principal of Town-Green, a sustainable architecture firm in Oakland. Coyle's firm joined the group in hopes of bringing a "progressive voice" to its debate. He said he was dismayed that Rothrock, the group's co-chair and chief public representative, had called for suspending the law. He has since notified the group that he wants out.

Other companies were similarly surprised by the Implementation Group's connections to major polluters.

"I was completely unaware of that," said Jeff Cox, a senior policy adviser at FuelCell Energy, a Connecticut-based company that makes zero-emissions energy equipment. "We were of the belief that it was an ad hoc group of business interests - but it appears that the group has been shanghaied by a group of well-connected interests."

Cilion, a Central Valley ethanol producer that closed its doors this June, was also in the dark about the Implementation Group's activity. According to Karri Hammerstrom, a former spokeswoman, Cilion's board of directors supported AB 32. "They believed Cilion was a tool to help implement AB 32," Hammerstrom said.

Another company listed as an Implementation Group member, Planktos, was sold in 2008 to a Cyprus-based firm that plans to operate copper mines in British Columbia. Planktos once proposed creating algae blooms in the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide. Its phone number now leads to a Farmer's Insurance office.

California Watch is a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting with offices in the Bay Area and Sacramento.