Sellouts

---

also tag

this category refers to democrats who do not support climate change, often energy co $, very often coal; GOP who support climate are apostates

see also tag

see blue dogs

see 3rd way corp dems

corrollate to swing/trump states?

// bribe COI corruption?

no merri

---

no twt lnx

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/gigi-sohn/

'Infuriating': Telecom lobbyists spending big money to keep Gigi Sohn off FCC

Julia Conley and Common Dreams May 01, 2022

Consumer rights defenders are warning that telecom companies and lobbyists are taking advantage of the U.S. Senate's delay in confirming Gigi Sohn to the Federal Communications Commission by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to pressure corporate Democrats to vote against the longtime public advocate.

"There's an unseemly amount of money being spent to promote disinformation about her," Greg Guice, director of government affairs for Public Knowledge, the group founded by Sohn, told MarketWatch this week. "These criticisms aren't based in fact whatsoever."

As Karl Bode wrote at Techdirt last week, former Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's rural-focused non-profit group recently launched a $250,000 social media ad campaign targeting at least two Democrats who have not yet confirmed how they plan to vote on Sohn's confirmation, even though it would give the party three of the five FCC seats for the first time in six years and would end the current deadlock.

The group's ads are aimed at Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), neither of whom have indicated how they will vote on Sohn's nomination and both of whom are facing reelection campaigns in November.Politico has reported that Heitkamp is also running ads in West Virginia, where right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin was "undecided" on Sohn after meeting her.

Heitkamp's group, the One Country Project, is claiming that Sohn has been insufficiently committed to improving broadband access in rural communities, pointing to congressional testimony in which she said Congress has been "disproportionately focused on broadband deployment in rural areas."

As Chris Matthews wrote at MarketWatch, Sohn's testimony didn't "argue that the federal government shouldn't fund broadband deployment, but that the main hurdle for Americans accessing broadband in both rural and urban areas is affordability, not infrastructure."

Heitkamp started One Country Project with "leftover campaign cash" to start her political action committee, Matthews noted, and countedAT&T and Comcast as two of her biggest donors when she was in the Senate.

"Telecom monopolies are now terrified that the Sohn appointment won't just break 2-2 commissioner gridlock (they created) at the agency, it will mean the restoration of meaningful federal oversight over one of the least popular and least competitive industries in the Internet ecosystem," wrote Bode at Techdirt.

Andrew Lokay, an analyst with independent policy research firm Beacon Policy Advisors, told MarketWatch that opponents of Sohn in the telecom industry appear to be "taking advantage of Biden's delay in nominating Sohn and the crowded Senate calendar in an attempt to sink her nomination."

Craig Aaron, president of media and technology advocacy group Free Press, accused the telecom industry and its allies of waging a "dishonest astroturf campaign" against Sohn and called the effort to derail the nomination of a strong net neutrality defender "infuriating."

In addition to One Country Project's efforts, theLeague of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)—which has long partnered with AT&T—published an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star earlier this month accusing Sohn of having a "deeply problematic track record on media diversity issues."

:{:{}:

The group wrote that as a senior staffer at the FCC, Sohn "masterminded a plan to give Google a government permission slip to steal, repackage and monetize TV programming without paying one cent to its creators"—a move which angered "diverse creators" and lawmakers over "how her proposal would impact vulnerable, underrepresented communities."

:{:{}:

In fact, Bode wrote, "the FCC's goal was to kill the cable box monopoly and save consumers about $20 billion annually in bullshit rental fees," adding that "framing it as a handout to 'big tech' is an intentional misrepresentation."

LULAC denied to MarketWatch that its opposition to Sohn has anything to do with its relationship with AT&T, and the company said it has not donated any money directly to One Country Project.

But as Bode argued, "Sohn's so popular, and the goals of telecom monopolies (less competition, more revenue, no oversight) are so viciously unpopular, they've been forced to fabricate flimsy complaints and funnel them through proxy organizations in a bid to derail the popular nomination."

"If Sohn's nomination is scuttled, it will come at the hands of Senators Joe Manchin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), or Mark Kelly, who will, not coincidentally, parrot the false justifications for opposing Sohn's nomination concocted by the telecom lobby," Bode added.

"It will leave a permanent and violent scar on the political and policy landscape," he added, "loudly advertising once again that the voice of the public (which overwhelmingly supports holding telecom and media giants meaningfully accountable) simply doesn't matter in our purported democracy."

==https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1430/cosponsors

28:1

cuellar

Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28]*

03/08/2017

stray on epa 3/15

The word “science” is having an existential crisis in Washington.

Two bills passed by the House last week that would redefine how the EPA considers science, and what science it can consider, have attracted huge interest from big EPA-regulated industries that have shown a preference for contributing to GOP campaigns — and to the handful of Democrats who voted with the Republicans.

The legislation puts big money industries and scientists on opposite sides of the ring. The big agriculture, oil, utility and other corporations say they want transparency and independent thinking in the EPA, while scientists say just the opposite will result if the measures are made law.

“House leaders and their allies in industry don’t like the answers science is giving,” said Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. “The titles and text of these bills are cleverly designed to conceal their purpose, which is to protect industry from any oversight and any limits on their ability to pollute.”

One bill would affect the membership and operation of EPA’s Science Advisory Board. The board exists to give the agency scientific advice on potential regulations. Supporters of thebill, who argue that EPA has a habit of twisting science around for whatever purpose it sees fit, say the changes will make the board more well-rounded and more transparent. Opponents, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, criticize the bill for permitting employees of the industries being regulated to be on the board; for requiring extensive public hearings that they say would create an undue burden on the process (though EPA is already required to do that separately); and for barring some of the most knowledgeable scientists from evaluating issues if their own work is involved.

The other, the Secret Science Reform Act would keep EPA from writing regulations based upon science that isn’t made available to the public. Supporters want the process to be more inclusive and open. Opponents say that it’s more complicated: Sometimes supporting science is based on sensitive information that can’t be made public, for example, and some scientific information is copyrighted and can’t be widely disseminated easily and at no cost.

As OpenSecrets Blog reported last year when the advisory board bill passed the House in the last Congress, heavyweight industries — including oil and gas,chemical companies, andbig ag — flexed their D.C. muscles in support of that bill. A near-party line vote sent the legislation along to the Senate, and there were clear links between the handful of Democrats that strayed over and voted with House Republicans on the bill and those interest groups.

Just one of the Democrats that strayed from the party four months ago returned to serve in the 114th Congress. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), now the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, receives a lot of cash from major players in agriculture. In the 2014 cycle, he took in $344,150 from the crop production industry and $160,250 from agricultural services and products. His top two donors were two big agriculture companies: Monsanto and American Crystal Sugar, which each gave $22,250 (Monsanto lobbyists pitched in another $4,000).

One other Democrat joined Peterson and Republicans this year on that bill, freshman Rep. Brad Ashford of Nebraska. Ashford’s top industries don’t pop out as ones that would be interested in the advisory board bill (and, in fact, his enthusiasm for fundraising appears low), but his personal finances tell a different story. His largest asset by far in 2013, the most recent year for which information is available, was a stake in oil and gas producer Apache Corp. totaling between $1.1 million and $5.2 million (lawmakers are required to list their holdings only in ranges on personal financial disclosure forms).

Interest in the ‘secret science’ bill last year came mostly from a similar set of industries — plus electric utilities, according to lobbying reports; the utilities also favor the GOP with their contributions, although not so lopsidedly as oil and gas does.

Four Democrats jumped ship on the ‘secret science’ bill this year to vote with Republicans, including Ashford and Peterson. The other two, Reps. Henry Cuellar(D-Texas) and Jim Costa (D-Calif.), both had strong support from the industries that lobbied on the science bills as well.

Cuellar received $127,200 from the oil and gas industry last cycle, making it his top industry overall. Crop production made a showing as well (No. 6 with $45,850), as did electric utilities (No. 11, giving $26,800). Conoco Phillips was his fifth biggest donor ($10,750, and lobbyists for the company gave another $500), and American Crystal Sugar was No. 6 ($10,000).

Costa also got a lot of love from agriculture (his No. 1 at $228,950), oil and gas (No. 2 giving $101,999 — despite being an industry that doesn’t exist in his district at all), and electric utilities (No. 10 at $35,500). American Crystal Sugar was his fourth most generous donor ($20,000), and Exxon was his seventh ($15,000).

The latest go-round is a case of deja vu all over again in Congress, as both bills passed the House last year and were sent to the Senate, where they died when the Democrats were in the majority. The outcome could be different this year, though Republicans are still a handful of votes shy of the 60 they’d need for cloture. Even then, it might not matter: The Obama Administration promptly issued veto threats as the bills headed to the Senate.

Tags: agriculture, American Crystal Sugar, andrew rosenberg, Apache Corp., big ag, Brad Ashford, chemical industry, clark mindock, conoco phillips, cuellar, epa, Henry Cuellar, Jim Costa, oil and gas, science, science advisory board, secret science, Union of Concerned Scientists, utilities

Yesterday, the House voted on a bill to codify a ban on federal funding for abortion, but with a new twist that would essentially exclude abortion coverage from ACA plans. Three House Democrats voted for this bill: Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Henry Cuellar of Texas, and Collin Peterson of Minnesota.

As it so happens, all three of these Democrats also voted with Republicans on approving the Keystone pipeline and gutting Wall Street reform. What will they vote for next?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359748/-These-are-the-Democrats-who-voted-against-abortion-coverage-Wall-Street-reform-and-the-environment#

Democrats, Lobbyists Launch Pro-Coal Advocacy Group

Posted: 08/30/2013 7:30 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- Former and current House members, along with several former staffers who now work as lobbyists, have launched a new group representing pro-coal Democrats.

CoalBlue Project, which began operating at the end of July, promotes itself as "Democrats committed to securing coal's place in America's sustainable energy future." The group includes Reps. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and Bill Enyart (D-Ill.), and former Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Tim Holden (D-Pa.). The group also includes current and former state elected officials.

CoalBlue's secretary, Stefan Bailey, said the group formed out of a desire to elevate Democratic pro-coal voices. "We knew there were a lot of Democrats out there that support coal and wanted to provide a forum for them to make their support known," said Bailey. The group's objective is to "identify, organize, educate, and mobilize Americans" in support of coal, Bailey said. The group plans to work with congressional, state, and local elected officials, he said. Bailey said he could not say the exact measures the group would push for, but it would generally work to advance coal technologies and find ways to keep coal in the energy mix.

The announcement of the group came weeks after the Obama administration rolled out a far-reaching climate plan that included a directive to the EPA to set emission limits for existing power plants and finalize limits for new power plants that would end the construction of coal plants unless they capture greenhouse gas pollutants.

BlueCoal will advocate the position that "a clean, low-carbon economy cannot be achieved without clean, low-carbon coal."

CoalBlue is registered as a non-profit in the District of Columbia. Baily said the group is seeking IRS recognition as a 501(c)4 nonprofit. Bailey declined to name the group's funding sources.

Bailey was a congressional staffer for nine years, working for Rahall and former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). He is now a director at the government relations firm Prime Policy Group, whose lobbying clients include energy companies such as Duke Energy, the largest electric utility in the U.S. Bailey said that he's working with CoalBlue as a volunteer, and that the group is not affiliated with his firm.

CoalBlue Project resident Jon Wood is the former vice president of government and external affairs for Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal producers in the U.S. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wood is still a registered lobbyist for Alpha. He worked previously for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Senators representing coal states, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) co-authored a statement of support for the group, posted on the front page of its website. "We are proud to support the important and worthy mission of CoalBlue Project, and welcome CoalBlue as a valuable and necessary voice in the national conversation regarding our nation’s energy future," the senators wrote.

Manchin spokesman Jonathan Kott said that the senator has "no official role" in the group, while he is "supportive of their agenda." (As HuffPost reported last week, Manchin is expected to go head-to-head with President Barack Obama over the president's nominee to lead the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, coal foe Ron Binz.)

Heitkamp spokeswoman Abigail McDonough said the senator is not affiliated with CoalBlue, but is "supportive of efforts to find real solutions for coal."

Rahall's office confirmed the congressman's involvement with the group. "Congressman Rahall has worked throughout his entire tenure in Congress to promote the use of coal as a major component of the nation’s domestic energy portfolio and as a means to lessen dependence on foreign fuels," said Rahall spokesman John Noble in an email to The Huffington Post. "He has been proud to lend his strong support to CoalBlue, which is working with individuals from all levels of government to achieve a broad commitment to the use of coal as a sustainable fuel, while advancing the technologies that will allow for coal to be burned more efficiently and cleanly."

Republicans and conservative Democrats just voted to sell you out to Wall Street. In other words, it's Tuesday.

Today, the House passed the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act 254 to 166. 30 Democrats voted with 224 Republicans in favor. 165 Democrats--and one Republican--voted against it. Those following H.R. 2374 thought it would pass with wide bipartisan margins, so having 165 Democratic NAY's was better than expected. The 30 Democratic YEA's still need to be named and shamed, however.

First, let's begin with the important question: What is the Retail Investor Protection Act? The bill delays a new Department of Labor rule that would prevent financial advisers from stealing from your 401(K) plans or IRAs. Allowing financial advisers to rip you off is a great complement to that other plank in the Republican-Conservadem retirement insecurity platform, cutting Social Security.

Here's David Dayen with more details:

The Labor Department proposal, known as the “fiduciary rule,” would change the ethical standards by which employer-based retirement products like 401(k)’s and IRAs are marketed and sold. The rule has not been updated since 1975, before 401(k)’s and IRAs even existed. The Labor Department wants to broaden the definition of a “fiduciary” to cover all financial advisers who offer individual investment advice for a fee. Under the rule, they would be legally required to work in the best interest of their clients. For example, a fiduciary would not be able to push investment products on customers in which they have a financial stake. The agency defines the goal of the proposal as “to ensure that potential conflicts of interest among advisers are not allowed to compromise the quality of investment advice that millions of American workers rely on, so they can retire with the dignity that they have worked hard to achieve.”

...

Currently, it is depressingly common for financial advisers, more than 80 percent of whom are not fiduciaries, to self-deal when offering advice. First off, they obtain large fees from the retirement products they sell. According to the think tank Demos, a median-income, two-earner household will pay $155,000 during their lifetime to financial advisers on average. (The lifetime gains for two-earner households from retirement accounts are around $230,000, meaning that nearly two-thirds of the profits go to the industry.) Second, non-fiduciary financial advisers can enjoy kickbacks; right now there is no rule against an adviser from a mutual fund company encouraging clients to put their money in specific funds sold by that company. In fact, that’s the norm, and the adviser typically receives a commission for the sale.

Conflicts of interest like this cost retirement investors at least $1 billion a month, because the funds they get channeled into underperform the alternatives. Financial advisers also encourage rollovers into high-cost IRAs when an individual changes jobs. None of these schemes have to be disclosed to the customer, under the current standard. The National Bureau for Economic Research found in a recent study that “adviser self‐interest plays an important role in generating advice that is not in the best interest of the clients.”

So in the middle of a retirement crisis, when the majority of Americans already aren’t accumulating the savings they need to maintain their standard of living, sellers of retirement products are skimming close to $60 billion a year off the top through deceptive practices, making a bad situation even worse.

Now that we know what it is, let's move to the next question: Who voted for it?

The lone Republican NO was Walter Jones (NC-03).

And here are the 30 Democratic YEA votes. Most of their names should look familiar if you've seen any of my past roll call diaries.

John Barrow (GA-12)

John Carney (DE-AL)

Gerry Connolly (VA-11)

Jim Costa (CA-16)

Henry Cuellar (TX-28)

John Delaney (MD-06)

Ted Deutch (FL-21)

Bill Foster (IL-11)

Pete Gallego (TX-23)

Joe Garcia (FL-26)

Denny Heck (WA-10)

Jim Himes (CT-04)

Derek Kilmer (WA-06)

Ron Kind (WI-03)

Rick Larsen (WA-02)

Dan Maffei (NY-24)

Jim Matheson (UT-04)

Mike McIntyre (NC-07)

Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Patrick Murphy (FL-18)

Bill Owens (NY-21)

Ed Perlmuter (CO-07)

Scott Peters (CA-52)

Gary Peters (MI-09)

Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Bradley Schneider (IL-10)

Kurt Schrader (OR-05)

Brad Sherman (CA-30)

Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

Filemon Vela (TX-34)

Note the appearance of Gary Peters on the list. He’s racked up quite the number of awful votes since he declared his intention to run for Carl Levin’s Senate seat. He must be doing it for the fundraising.

WASHINGTON -- Former and current House members, along with several former staffers who now work as lobbyists, have launched a new group representing pro-coal Democrats.

CoalBlue Project, which began operating at the end of July, promotes itself as "Democrats committed to securing coal's place in America's sustainable energy future." The group includes Reps.Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and Bill Enyart (D-Ill.), and former Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Tim Holden (D-Pa.). The group also includes current and former state elected officials.

The announcement of the group came weeks after the Obama administration rolled out a far-reaching climate plan that included a directive to the EPA to set emission limits for existing power plants and finalize limits for new power plants that wouldend the construction of coal plants unless they capture greenhouse gas pollutants.

BlueCoal will advocate the position that "a clean, low-carbon economy cannot be achieved without clean, low-carbon coal."

CoalBlue is registered as a non-profit in the District of Columbia. Baily said the group is seeking IRS recognition as a 501(c)4 nonprofit. Bailey declined to name the group's funding sources.

Heitkamp spokeswoman Abigail McDonough said the senator is not affiliated with CoalBlue, but is "supportive of efforts to find real solutions for coal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/democrats-coal-congress_n_3839660.html?ir=Green&ref=topbar

rolling Stone

November 9, 2011 6:50 AM ET

• Chuck Schumer (New York) Recived $2.7 million from Wall Street. Defended loophole that allows hedgefund billionaires to pay only 15 percent in taxes. May back a tax "amnesty" to allow giant corporations to evade billions in taxes on profits they've stashed offshore. Key quote: "$250,ooo makes you really rich in Mississippi, but it doesn't make you rich at all in New York."

• Ben Nelson (Nebraska) Corporate America's most dependable Democrat. Provided the 50th vote for Bush's tax cuts; helped the GOP downsize the stimulus and weaken health care reform. Voted against jobless benefits for the unemployed while supporting $21 billion in subsidies for Big Oil. Key quote: "One of the biggest challenges our job creators face is overregulation."

• Joe Manchin (West Virginia) Appeared in campaign ad firing a rifle at Obama's climate legislation. In office barely a year, has accepted $600,000 from coal interests - and voted for a GOP measure to permanently bar the EPA from regulating big carbon polluters. Key quote: "The EPA's overreach is destroying jobs in my state and all over the country, and it must be stopped."

• Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) Accepted almost $1 million from Big Oil; prevented $13 billion in industry tax breaks from being diverted to clean energy. Opposed a temporary halt to offshore drilling, even after the BP spill. Key quote: "If I were one of them," she said, defending beleaguered oil executives, "I'd be tempted to just shut off the spigots and go elsewhere."

• Kay Hagan (North Carolina) Won praise from Rep. Eric Cantor for co-sponsoring GOP bill to allow America's richest corporations to pay only 5.25 percent in taxes on $1.4 trillion in offshore profits. Voted for GOP "jobs" bill to repeal withholding tax on federal contractors. Key quote: Tax evaders like GE are victims of an "outdated" tax system that "traps" their profits abroad.

This story is from the November 24, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-enablers-democrats-on-board-with-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz1hgJt2xgS