coc3 bak

<div> 4 is also bak for 3
<div>
</div><div></div><div>NEW</div><div>
</div><div><div>2014 990 coc</div><div>
</div><div>Name and address of principal officer:</div><div>Stan M Harrell</div><div>1615 H Street NW</div><div>Washington,DC200622000</div><div>
</div><div>(1) David Adkisson......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(2) Robert O Agbede......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(3) Harry C Alford......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(4) Anthony J Allott......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(5) Stewart Alvarez......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(6) Scott Anderson......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(7) Lee R Anderson Sr......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(8) John W Bachmann......................................................................</div><div>Treasurer/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X X 0 0 0</div><div>(9) Charles E Barnes Sr......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(10) Hector V Barreto......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(11) Lane Beattie......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(12) Sandra Beaty......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(13) Kathy G Beckett......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(14) Thomas D Bell Jr......................................................................</div><div>Senior Council/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X X 0 0 0</div><div>(15) Jorge L Benitez......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(16) Gary C Bhojwani......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>.................</div><div>  X 0 0 0</div><div>(17) John F Biagas......................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>
</div><div>(18) Jan Jones Blackhurst........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(19) Phillip D Brady........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(20) Chuck Brymer........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(21) John Cannon........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(22) Red Cavaney........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(23) Norman C Chambers........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(24) James W Cicconi........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(25) Ken W Cole........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(26) Kevin M Connelly........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(27) Adam Cooper........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(28) Charles Copeland........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(29) Joseph W Craft III........................................................................</div><div>Reg Vice Chair Southcentral/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(30) Ralph de la Torre........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(31) Nicholas J DeIuliis........................................................................</div><div>Reg Vice Chair Great Lakes/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(32) Wayne S DeVeydt........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(33) Maura W Donahue........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(34) Thomas J Donohue........................................................................</div><div>President & CEO/Director</div><div>40.00</div><div>.......................1.00 X X 6,134,741 0 62,729</div><div>(35) Michael L Ducker........................................................................</div><div>Vice Chair/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(36) Carrie E Dwyer........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(37) Fuad El-Hibri........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(38) Patricia Elizondo........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(39) David R Emery........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(40) Daniel F Evans Jr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(41) Robert D Fatovic........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(42) Patrick M Finken........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(43) Martin G Foster........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(44) Mark D French........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(45) Craig L Fuller........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(46) Walter J Galvin........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(47) Bruce A Gates........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(48) Michael J Graff........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(49) Ernest Green Jr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(50) James M Guyette........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(51) W Melvin Haas III........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(52) James L Hebe........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(53) Kevin Herglotz........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(54) S Dale High........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(55) Scott L Holman Sr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(56) John L Hopkins........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(57) CA Howlett........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(58) Thomas Hutchison III........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(59) Gregory Irace........................................................................</div><div>Reg Vice Chair East/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(60) Harold L Jackson........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(61) David Jacobson........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(62) Donald M James........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(63) James M Jaska........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(64) Boland T Jones........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(65) Paul W Jones........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(66) Fred Kaiser........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(67) Philip D Kennedy........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(68) David E Kepler........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(69) Paul J Klaassen........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(70) Klaus Kleinfeld........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(71) Jessie J Knight Jr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(72) Laura Lane........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(73) Greg Lebedev........................................................................</div><div>Consultant/Director</div><div>28.00</div><div>.......................1.00 X 260,000 0 8,900</div><div>(74) Michael A Leven........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(75) Stuart L Levenick........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(76) Hank Linginfelter........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(77) William G Little........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(78) Christopher B Lofgren PhD........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(79) Tamara L Lundgren........................................................................</div><div>Chairman/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(80) Andrew D Lundquist........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(81) Ted Mathas........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(82) Richard H McClure........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(83) Thomas V McKernan........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(84) Richard L McNeel........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(85) James W Mendenhall........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(86) Randy Milch........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(87) Rance C Miles........................................................................</div><div>Reg Vice Chair Southwest/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(88) Darlene M Miller........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(89) Robert S Milligan........................................................................</div><div>Sr Cncl/Reg Vice Chr Mdwst/Dir</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(90) Dayton H Molendorp........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(91) Maritza Montiel........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(92) David Muhlendorf........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(93) Susan K Neely........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(94) Brian O'Hara........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(95) Mark Ordan........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(96) Patricia Owen........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(97) Daniel F Packer........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(98) Peter Paoli........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(99) Manuel J Perez de la Mesa........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(100) Wolfgang G Pordzik........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(101) James M Power........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(102) Randal K Quarles........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(103) Jeffrey K Rageth........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(104) Joseph M Rigby........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(105) James H Roberts........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(106) Tchad Robinson........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(107) James E Rogers........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(108) Stephen J Rohleder........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(109) Matthew K Rose........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(110) John Ruan III........................................................................</div><div>Senior Council/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(111) Kim T Rumph........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(112) Edward B Rust Jr........................................................................</div><div>Chairman Comp Comm/ Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(113) David T Seaton........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(114) Gerald L Shaheen........................................................................</div><div>Senior Council/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(115) Donald J Shepard........................................................................</div><div>Senior Council/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(116) Rajendra Singh........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(117) Suzanne Sitherwood........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(118) Christel Slaughter PhD........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(119) Edgar L Smith Jr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(120) Paul S Speranza Jr........................................................................</div><div>Senior Council/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(121) Eric A Spiegel........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(122) James A Squires........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(123) Charles R Stamp Jr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(124) James E Stephenson........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(125) Donald J Sterhan........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(126) Richard K Studley........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(127) Frank Sullivan........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(128) Brandon W Sweitzer........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(129) Richard J Tobin........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(130) Mark S Towe........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(131) Mick Truitt........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(132) Robert N Trunzo........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(133) Harold Turner Jr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(134) Joseph Ucuzoglu........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(135) Steve Van Andel........................................................................</div><div>Chairman Exec Comm/ Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(136) Stephen R Van Meter........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(137) Frank L VanderSloot........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(138) Roland H Vaughan........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(139) LeRoy Walker Jr........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(140) Edward Wanandi........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(141) Mark E Watson III........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(142) Robert C Weber........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(143) Ronald E Weinberg........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(144) Thomas J Wilson........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(145) Christopher C Womack........................................................................</div><div>Reg Vice Chair Southeast/Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X X 0 0 0</div><div>(146) Joan Woodward........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(147) James M Wordsworth........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(148) Elanna S Yalow........................................................................</div><div>Director</div><div>1.00</div><div>....................... X 0 0 0</div><div>(149) Lily Fu Claffee........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; SVP, Gnrl Cnsl & CLO</div><div>40.00</div><div>.......................5.00 X 1,308,606 0 44,643</div><div>(150) Stan M Harrell........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; SVP, CFO and CIO</div><div>40.00</div><div>.......................5.00 X 808,424 0 215,157</div><div>(151) Ryan Meyers........................................................................</div><div>Assistant Secretary</div><div>40.00</div><div>....................... X 281,916 0 36,161</div><div>(152) David C Chavern........................................................................</div><div>EVP, USCC; President, CATI</div><div>40.00</div><div>.......................5.00 X 1,886,359 0 140,414</div><div>(153) Shannon DiBari........................................................................</div><div>EVP, USCC; COO</div><div>40.00</div><div>.......................4.00 X 926,017 0 403,328</div><div>(154) Robert J Engstrom........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; SVP Pol Affrs & Fed Rel</div><div>40.00</div><div>....................... X 536,582 0 124,865</div><div>(155) Robert B Josten........................................................................</div><div>EVP, USCC; EVP, Government Affairs</div><div>40.00</div><div>....................... X 2,203,231 0 347,743</div><div>(156) Agnes Warfield-Blanc........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; SVP, Dev & Fund</div><div>40.00</div><div>....................... X 3,563,175 0 48,727</div><div>(157) Myron A Brilliant........................................................................</div><div>EVP, USCC; EVP & Head of Int'l</div><div>40.00</div><div>.......................1.00 X 1,657,332 0 236,152</div><div>(158) Thomas J Collamore........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; SVP, Com & Strgy, Cnsl/Pres</div><div>40.00</div><div>....................... X 1,347,767 0 52,137</div><div>(159) Karen A Harbert........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; Pres & CEO, Energy Inst</div><div>40.00</div><div>....................... X 1,088,479 0 46,354</div><div>(160) David T Hirschmann........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; Pres & CEO, CCMC & GIPC</div><div>40.00</div><div>....................... X 1,366,793 0 233,043</div><div>(161) James W Robinson........................................................................</div><div>SVP, USCC; Counselor to the Pres</div><div>=</div></div><div>BAK</div><div>4/16 see USCoc 1 and 2, plus tag<div> SEE COC4 420 bak html lodging<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/us-chamber-commerce">http://www.desmogblog.com/us-chamber-commerce</a>extensive, see harbert=<div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">=</div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/exxonmobils-shift-on-climate-change-belies-its-contributions-to-climate-deniers/">https://truthout.org/articles/exxonmobils-shift-on-climate-change-belies-its-contributions-to-climate-deniers/</a></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">
</div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">elliot negin</div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">
</div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">after decades of public denial, ExxonMobil now <a href="https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/perspectives/better-approach-climate-change/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">acknowledges</a> that “the risk of climate change is real” and says it is “committed to being part of the solution,” at least according to the company’s website and statements. To that end, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world claims it <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/09/exxonmobil-gives-million-promote-carbon-tax-and-dividend-plan/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">supports a federal carbon tax</a> and the <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change/Statements-on-Paris-climate-agreement" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Paris climate agreement</a>.But the company’s recently released <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Community-engagement/Worldwide-giving/Worldwide-Giving-Report" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">grantmaking report</a> shows that it has not ended its two-decade-long campaign to stymie government efforts to address climate change. By ExxonMobil’s own accounting, it gave $690,000 to eight climate science denier groups in 2019, a 10 percent drop from 2018. In addition, itcontinued to fund federal lawmakers who oppose a carbon tax, despite its supposed longtime support for the idea. Forty percent of the nearly <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=d000000129" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$1 million</a> it has contributed so far to congressional incumbent campaigns during the 2019-20 election cycle has gone to 115 of the <a href="https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/news/2019/01/28/172944/climate-deniers-116th-congress/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">150 climate science deniers</a> still in office.Sixty percent of ExxonMobil’s 2019 donations to climate obstructionist groups for “public information and policy research” went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, while another 30 percent was split between the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which have been receiving annual grants from the company since it began financing climate disinformation 22 years ago. All told, ExxonMobil has spent more than <a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/global-warming/XOM+Worldwide+Giving+2018.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$37 million</a> on climate science denier organizations from 1998 through 2019, more than any individual funder besides Charles Koch and his brother, the late David Koch, the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries. Koch-controlled foundations spent more than <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$145 million</a> on many of the same groups over roughly the same time period.did the top three recipients of ExxonMobil grants for climate science denier groups in 2019 toe the company’s publicly stated line on climate? The short answer is no. If actions speak louder than words, the donations call into question ExxonMobil’s commitment to seriously address the climate crisis and deserve a closer look.<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 3rem 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.2;">The U.S. Chamber Still Opposes Carbon Pollution Standards</h2>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a major player in blocking action on climate change going back to the 1990s, when the business lobby and Exxon were members of the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Climate_Coalition" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Global Climate Coalition</a>, a consortium of corporations and trade associations opposed to government policies that would cut carbon emissions.But in 2009 — the same year ExxonMobil first <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jan/10/exxon-mobil-carbon-tax" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">announced</a> its support for a carbon tax in a cynical attempt to derail cap-and-trade climate legislation — the Chamber’s united front began to crack. A handful of Fortune 500 companies — including Apple, Exelon Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric — <a href="https://www.npr.org/2009/10/06/113548724/companies-quit-u-s-chamber-over-climate-policy" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">quit</a> the Chamber over its opposition to the cap-and-trade bill while two other high-profile companies — Nike and Johnson & Johnson — retained their membership but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/29/us-chamber-commerce-climate-change#=" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">rebuked the</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/29/us-chamber-commerce-climate-change#=" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">business lobby</a> for the same reason. Since then, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/24/disney-the-gap-and-pepsi-urged-to-quit-us-chamber-of-commerce" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">at least a dozen</a> Chamber members, including Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, Mars, Nestlé and Unilever, have headed for the exits.By contrast, ExxonMobil not only retained its Chamber membership, but it also pledged $5 million in annual installments to help pay for the Chamber’s <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/washington-post-how-the-us-chamber-adapting-evolving-leading" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$250-million renovation</a> of its Washington, D.C., headquarters. In 2019, the company donated <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/worldwide-giving/2019-Worldwide-Giving-Report.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$400,000 for the building </a><a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/worldwide-giving/2019-Worldwide-Giving-Report.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">rehabilitation</a><a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/worldwide-giving/2019-Worldwide-Giving-Report.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;"> and another $15,000 </a>to the Chamber’s Corporate Citizenship Center, bringing its total contributions since 2014 to $4.8 million.[table graf]What does ExxonMobil get for its money? Among other things, the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathy-mulvey/trade-groups-must-be-challenged-for-their-harmful-climate-deception" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">business lobby</a> goes to bat for it in court by <a href="https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/chamber_litigation_report_part_1.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">filing lawsuits</a> against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and in the court of public opinion by funding misleading climate-related reports. A prime example is the Chamber’s <a href="https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/donald-trump-climate-accord-fact-check" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">widely</a> debunked 2017 <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y68ty5g7" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">report</a> that grossly <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">exaggerated the cost</a> to the U.S. economy of complying with the Paris climate agreement. President Donald Trump cited that report as his <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">primary rationale</a> for ignoring the U.S. commitment to the accord, and he has vowed to officially pull the United States out in early November.However, in 2019, the Chamber seemed to take a 180-degree turn, <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/addressing-climate-change" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">declaring</a> on its website: “Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option.” [CF FALLBACK] Although one could quibble with the assertion that human activity is merely contributing to climate change when in fact burning fossil fuels is the main cause, it was a far cry from when the organization <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/10/more-chamber-commerces-climate-denial/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">maintained</a> in comments submitted to the EPA in 2009 that “a warming of even 3 [degrees Celsius] in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans.”But the Chamber’s turnabout was not complete. Although it now concedes the reality of human-caused climate change, it is still pushing private-sector innovation as the solution to the climate crisis rather than much-needed government regulation, which historically has driven technological advances.So, while the Chamber supports government funding for <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/addressing-climate-change" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">research and development</a> of advanced nuclear reactors, utility-scale batteries, and carbon capture and storage technology, it backed the Trump administration’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/energy-independence" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">rollbacks</a> of the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which would have reduced power plant carbon emissions and its 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule, which would have protected small streams, wetlands and groundwater from toxic chemicals.More recently, the Chamber supported the Trump administration’s weakening of the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act by limiting public input in the infrastructure project approval process and rescinding a requirement that federal agencies consider a proposed project’s impact on the climate.Unlike ExxonMobil’s professed support for a carbon tax, the Chamber has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-chamber-climatechange/after-skepticism-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-forms-climate-change-task-force-idUSKBN1W92WH" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">no official position</a>, but if carbon tax legislation ever made it to the Senate or House floor, it presumably would oppose it given its dim view of government regulation.Likewise, the Chamber’s avowed support for U.S. compliance with the Paris climate accord includes a major caveat. Dan Byers, vice president for policy at the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/22/climate-change-global-translations-1675710" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">told</a> Politico in August 2019 that it is “absolutely important for the U.S. to remain in the Paris climate agreement” but added that the “Obama administration’s pledge was unrealistic, [and] was going to have a negative impact on our economy. And so we’d like to see that revisited.” In other words, the Chamber would like the United States to remain a party to the agreement so that it could lobby to weaken the U.S. commitment to it.<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 3rem 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.2;">American Enterprise Institute Still Downplays the Climate Threat</h2>In 2019, ExxonMobil gave the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/worldwide-giving/2019-Worldwide-Giving-Report.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$110,000</a>, bringing its total since 1998 to $4.76 million — more than any other of its climate science denier grantees. The 82-year-old, free market think tank also receives generous funding from other climate disinformation network supporters, including the <a href="https://documented.net/2019/12/bradley-foundations-pour-millions-into-network-of-climate-denial-and-anti-labor-organization-tax-filings-show/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation</a> and the <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/480918408" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Charles Koch Foundation</a>.What does ExxonMobil get for its money from AEI? A cheerleader for fossil fuels, economist Benjamin Zycher, who — contrary to the company’s professed climate positions — <a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-carbon-tax-is-not-just-political-its-ineffective-too/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">argues</a> that a carbon tax would be “ineffective” and has <a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-absurdity-that-is-the-paris-climate-agreement/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">called</a> the Paris agreement an “absurdity.”In March, Zycher published a <a href="https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/A-Critique-of-the-House-Republican-Climate-Policy-Proposals.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">report</a> arguing that “any plausible policy” to curb carbon emissions “would yield trivial effects while imposing large costs.” Instead, he recommended the federal government adopt a policy of “watchful waiting, adaptation over time, and ongoing investment in resilience against the future effects of climactic[sic] changes.How could Zycher recommend “watchful waiting” given the large costs climate change is already imposing right now? Granted, he published his report before this summer, when heat waves and wildfires burned up the West Coast and hurricanes slammed the Southeast. But last summer was not that different, and climate change-related disasters have been racking up considerable damage over the last few years. From 2017 through 2019, there were <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/summary-stats/2017-2019" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">44</a> unique extreme weather and climate-linked events across the country causing damages of $1 billion or more, collectively costing more than <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/summary-stats/2017-2019" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$460 billion</a>.Nevertheless, Zycher insists fossil fuels are <a href="https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/A-Critique-of-the-House-Republican-Climate-Policy-Proposals.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">indispensable</a>. “Opposition to fossil fuels implies a reduction in policies — education, training, health care, and the like — that add to human capital and so increase incomes and the demand for conventional energy,” he wrote. “Therefore, opposition to fossil fuels is fundamentally antihuman.”Zycher made the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/9e832c8a-8961-11ea-a109-483c62d17528?accessToken=zwAAAXHw604IkdOegyyKiWER6tOhCUg8YtF1KA.MEUCIDY7KDYiwqK-47nca5CvfTduy65DHi-WnvyA_OKhjK-rAiEAzEyNEOIfmNiwv0eFa3Gz-WdX9hcXmrnSpY3ZakOEvhI&sharetype=gift?token=37bb3af1-7e79-4831-834e-fb6bc4fc4845" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">same argument</a> in a May 7 column in the Financial Times, ranting that environmentalists who aim to deprive the world of fossil fuels “hate humanity, and the planet too.”Putting aside Zycher’s ad hominem attack on the “environmental left,” he deliberately confuses the societal benefits of energy with how it is generated. At several junctures in history, humans switched from wood to coal to natural gas to warm their homes. Likewise, they switched from whale oil to kerosene to incandescents to LEDs to illuminate their homes.Opposition to coal and kerosene in the past or fossil fuels today is not “fundamentally antihuman” when there are better, cleaner alternatives. And it turns out the alternatives — solar and wind, specifically — are now the <a href="https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">cheapest sources of electricity</a>, and they could have been more widely available years ago if ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies had not stood in the way.<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 3rem 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.2;">The Manhattan Institute Is Still in Love With Fossil Fuels</h2>The Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based libertarian think tank, received <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/worldwide-giving/2019-Worldwide-Giving-Report.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$90,000</a> from ExxonMobil in 2019. Since 1998, the company has given the organization more than $1.4 million.For the last decade, the institute’s go-to energy expert has been Robert Bryce, who, like AEI’s Zycher, is <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/three-major-problems-carbon-tax" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">no fan of a carbon tax</a>, ExxonMobil’s supposed pet climate solution. Before he left the think tank at the end of 2019, Bryce spent much of his time bashing renewable energy and extolling fossil fuels in reports and in the pages of the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/renewable-mandates-and-carbon-taxes-lost-big-on-tuesday/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">National Review</a>, <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/03/07/angry-us-landowners-are-killing-off-renewable-energy-projects/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">New York Post</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-bryce-dreaming-the-impossible-green-dream-1402527502" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Wall Street Journal</a> and other publications.Bryce routinely disparages renewables without providing context. In an August 2019 column on the conservative website RealClearEnergy, for example, he <a href="https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/16/big_winds_big_headwinds_110467.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">maintained</a> that the wind industry is “facing increasing opposition” at least partly because of what he insists is the major threat it poses to eagles and other birds, an assertion he has been making ad nauseum for years. In fact, the <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wind-energy-threat-to-bir_b_4321113" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">top human-caused threats</a> to birds are <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/10/climate-change-threatens-bird-species/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">climate change</a>, <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/buildings-are-hazardous-to-migratory-birds-but-there-are-solutions/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">buildings</a>, power lines, misapplied pesticides, communications towers, and oil and gas industry fluid waste pits — not wind turbines.As for wind energy’s specific threat to eagles, Dan Ashe, a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, debunked Bryce’s fallacious claim in a December 2016 HuffPost column. “Public attention on eagle loss in recent years has focused almost exclusively on wind energy,” Ashe <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-better-way-to-conserve-eagles_b_5851536de4b0320ed05a9a09" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">wrote</a>. “In truth, wind turbine collisions comprise a fraction of human-caused eagle losses. Most result from intentional and accidental poisoning and purposeful shooting. The majority of non-intentional loss occurs when eagles collide with cars or ingest lead shot or bullet fragments in remains and gut piles left by hunters. Others collide with or are electrocuted on power lines. Disproportionately and solely focusing on wind energy distorts public perceptions at a time when we desperately need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”Cutting carbon pollution is hardly a goal that Bryce or any of his Manhattan Institute colleagues would ever publicly endorse. Doing so would certainly not please their other climate science denier benefactors, which include the <a href="https://documented.net/2019/12/bradley-foundations-pour-millions-into-network-of-climate-denial-and-anti-labor-organization-tax-filings-show/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation</a>, <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/480918408" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Charles Koch Foundation</a>, hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer’s <a href="https://maplight.org/story/tax-return-shows-mercer-family-fueled-climate-skeptics-last-year-with-more-than-4-million/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Mercer Family Foundation</a>, and Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, a <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/board-of-trustees" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Manhattan Institute trustee</a>. All have donated considerably more money to the think tank than ExxonMobil in recent years and, unlike the oil company, do not pretend to care about the climate crisis.<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 3rem 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.2;">Maintaining the Status Quo in Congress</h2>The New York Times recently ran a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/business/energy-environment/oil-climate-change-us-europe.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">story</a> pointing out that European and U.S. oil companies are heading in very different directions when it comes to climate change. While BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and other European-based companies are beginning to sell their oil fields and invest in renewable energy, their U.S. counterparts <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-13/chevron-keeps-drilling-for-oil-as-its-rivals-embrace-renewables?sref=ZMY9rmLQ" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Chevron</a> and <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathy-mulvey/three-reasons-investors-should-give-exxonmobils-2020-climate-report-the-thumbs-down" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">ExxonMobil</a> are betting that oil and gas will continue to make up at least 50 percent of the energy market for at least the next 20 years.Instead of transitioning to solar and wind, the two U.S. oil giants are spending <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/the-oil-and-gas-industry-in-energy-transitions" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">relatively trivial amounts</a> on unproven technologies, such as <a href="https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevron-invests-in-nuclear-fusion-start-up?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=corporate" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">modular fusion nuclear reactors (Chevron)</a>, <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/energy-and-carbon-summary/Energy-and-carbon-summary.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">algae-based biofuel (ExxonMobil)</a>, and carbon capture and storage schemes (both), which so far have been <a href="https://theenergymix.com/2020/08/05/carbon-capture-failure-in-texas-bodes-badly-for-similar-projects-elsewhere-ieefa-warns/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">costly failures</a>. If those pipe dreams were ever demonstrated to work at the necessary scale, it would still take decades to commercialize them.The main reason European oil and gas companies are taking baby steps to embrace renewables? Government pressure. The European Union has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-eu-target/european-commission-to-propose-more-ambitious-2030-climate-goal-document-idINKBN262160" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">set a goal</a> of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and <a href="https://theclimatecenter.org/actions-by-countries-phase-out-gas/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">seven EU countries</a> plan to phase out vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel over the next few decades. Austria, with the most aggressive timetable, will ban internal-combustion-engine <a href="https://www.erneuerbareenergien.de/archiv/austria-could-ban-new-gas-and-diesel-cars-by-2020-150-437-94794.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">vehicle sales after 2020</a>.Although California <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/climate/california-ban-gas-cars.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">recently announced</a> it would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and most diesel-powered trucks by 2045, the Trump administration has taken the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-trump-administrations-track-record-on-the-environment/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">opposite tack</a>, gutting landmark Obama-era rules curbing vehicle and power plant carbon emissions, rolling back methane emission and coal ash storage regulations, and lifting bans on oil and gas drilling on public land. Congress, meanwhile, has declined to consider <a href="https://www.c2es.org/document/carbon-pricing-proposals-in-the-116th-congress/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">climate bills</a> that have been introduced since the beginning of the 2019-20 session.A September 21 New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/business/energy-environment/oil-climate-change-us-europe.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">story</a> cited unnamed energy analysts who excused Chevron and ExxonMobil for not changing their business models. “U.S. lawmakers,” the analysts told the Times, “have simply not given them enough incentives to make a radical break.”A major reason Congress has not given the U.S. oil industry enough incentives to change course is because oil and gas companies have been giving a critical mass of U.S. lawmakers enough incentives to do nothing. As mentioned above, $401,198 of the $991,329 ExxonMobil has spent so far on congressional incumbent campaigns during the current election cycle has gone to 115 of the 150 climate science deniers on Capitol Hill. Likewise, Chevron has spent <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/chevron/recipients?id=D000000015&" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$936,489</a> on incumbent campaigns so far. A little more than $433,000 — 46 percent — has gone to 82 climate science deniers.Besides making campaign contributions, oil companies spend a lot of money to keep tabs on their friends in Washington. So far, the top <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2020&id=e01" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">three oil and gaslobbyists</a> during the 2019-20 cycle are Koch Industries, which has spent $30.72 million; Chevron, which has spent $28.54 million; and ExxonMobil, which has spent $28.36 million.Why does ExxonMobil still support so many climate science deniers in Congress while contending to be so keen on a carbon tax? After all, just two years ago the company announced it would <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/09/exxonmobil-gives-million-promote-carbon-tax-and-dividend-plan/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">donate $1 million</a> over two years to <a href="https://www.afcd.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Americans for Carbon Dividends</a>, a political action group created to promote a revenue-neutral carbon tax.Some lawmakers are bullish on a carbon tax, but ExxonMobil largely ignores them. Since January 2019, <a href="https://www.c2es.org/document/carbon-pricing-proposals-in-the-116th-congress/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">eight representatives</a>, two Republicans and six Democrats — and <a href="https://www.c2es.org/document/carbon-pricing-proposals-in-the-116th-congress/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">nine senators</a>, all Democrats — have introduced <a href="https://www.c2es.org/document/carbon-pricing-proposals-in-the-116th-congress/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">10 carbon tax bills and one cap-and-trade bill</a>. But only one of the eight representatives and four of the nine senators received a campaign contribution from ExxonMobil during this election cycle. The total amount the company donated to the five lawmakers was $15,000 — a measly 4 percent of what it gave climate science deniers.To be sure, ExxonMobil’s spending on climate disinformation has shrunk dramatically in recent years. The company’s 2019 outlay was less than <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-groups" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">half</a> of what it <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-groups" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">spent in 2017</a> and the lowest amount since 1999, when Exxon was going through its merger with Mobil. Likewise, its campaign contributions to climate science deniers in Congress dropped from <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobil-still-bankrolling-climate-deniers" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$1.1 million</a> during the 2017-18 election cycle to only $400,000, this cycle.But the fact remains that, while the company is saying all the right things publicly about the need to address climate change, it is continuing to fund think tanks and lawmakers who dispute the science and oppose government action. That suggests that its professed support for a carbon tax is no more than a disingenuous public relations ploy to delay government action.The tobacco industry used the very same tactic to hold off regulations for decades, and it worked well until it didn’t, when the industry lost in court and agreed to pay <a href="https://www.npr.org/2013/10/13/233449505/15-years-later-where-did-all-the-cigarette-money-go" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">$246 billion</a> in fines to states over 25 years.</div>=<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/497093-republicans-blasting-china-forget-that-the-gop-enabled-beijings">https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/497093-republicans-blasting-china-forget-that-the-gop-enabled-beijings</a>ref
just free mkt BS or corps wanted?<a href="https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/facts-over-fear-win-china-pntr-debate">https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/facts-over-fear-win-china-pntr-debate</a>
facts Over Fear Win China PNTR Debate<div id="timelineanchor" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px 0px -10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; height: 10px; position: relative; top: -60px;"><div class="content-section" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; border: 0px; max-width: 960px; position: relative;"><article class="node-74259 node node-document view-mode-full clearfix" about="/press-release/facts-over-fear-win-china-pntr-debate" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px;"><header style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><div class="field field-name-field-event-date field-type-date field-label-hidden" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 6px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><div class="field-items" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><div class="field-item even" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Tuesday, May 23, 2000 </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><div class="field-items" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded" style="max-height: 1e+06px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue called today's bipartisan House vote granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China "a victory of fact over fear and a historic win for the American economy and our national security."The truth about free trade won today," said Donohue. "PNTR opens China's markets for American products, businesses and farmers, and creates jobs for workers here at home. Once Congress focused on the facts, no amount of union pressure to isolate this country could defeat the fact that this trade deal with China is in America's best interest."American business and workers – from the new economy to the old and the small to the large – clearly recognized the significance of this vote," he said. "As co-chair of the Business Coalition for U.S. – China Trade, we worked with a broad based group of supporters, from the grassroots to the Congress, to overcome an all-out blitz of misinformation by union leaders and their allies."This was a bipartisan victory, Donohue concluded, and he commended members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, for many of whom "this was a particularly tough vote, given the tremendous pressure from the opponents of free trade."The Chamber has actively supported the China trade deal by mobilizing a massive grassroots effort in 66 congressional districts, beginning over a year before the vote. In addition, 20 lobbyists fanned out across Capitol Hill organizing over 400 congressional meetings and more than 30 Chamber field staffers organized numerous events in targeted congressional districts."This vote recognizes that the China trade agreement is overwhelmingly in our favor. China's concessions are its price of admission to the WTO," said Donohue. "The choice was clear: embrace and benefit from China as a trading partner, or stick our heads in the sand and hope they go away. Congress made the right choice today."The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region.</div></div></div></header></article></div>=<div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/how-the-so-called-champion-of-american-business-fought-to-protect-profiteering-and-endangered-millions">https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/how-the-so-called-champion-of-american-business-fought-to-protect-profiteering-and-endangered-millions</a></div><div>
</div><div>As hospital intensive care units overflow again, and delays in COVID-19 testing reports reach record levels in many cities, a conversation I recently with Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, reminded me that I had forgotten something utterly critical: Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally disarm America in the face of the coronavirus invasion was urged upon him by an ostensible defender of American business: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.When the pandemic reached America, we weren’t ready — any more than we were ready when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. But Trump had the tools to do what the U.S. has often done: make up for lack of preparedness. The crucial gaps to fill in March were supplies for testing to limit the spread of the virus, and medical equipment to treat those who got sick — testing kits, swabs, reagents, masks, gowns and gloves — by the billions. Government health agencies estimated that if the pandemic took hold, the country would need, for example, 3.5 billion N95 medical masks. We had 12 million.Presidents have available, and have routinely used, the Cold War-era Defense Production Act to overcome such critical supply shortages — not just in wartime, but also to ensure adequate relief supplies after natural disasters. DPA can be used to put emergency purchases at the head of a supply chain, but also to require factories to convert their output to provide needed equipment in adequate volumes. Members of Congress urged Trump to appoint a military official as DPA czar to coordinate production and distribution of essential pandemic-related medical supplies, as was done in the Korean War.In March, Trump was leaning towards robust use of the DPA, fashioning himself as a wartime president and the battle against the coronavirus as America’s “big war.” He invoked the DPA to require General Motors to speed up its production of ventilators. But he quickly discovered that he had an enemy within — not the virus as such, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Within days of Trump’s announcement that he would mobilize as if for war and use the DPA, the Chamber of Commerce’s lobbying army swung into action. Among the Chamber’s arguments: DPA would impose “red tape on companies precisely when they need flexibility to deal with closed borders and shuttered factories.” Unstated: if the government took charge of the supply chain for tests, masks and gowns, it could also prevent bidding wars from competing hospitals and states that would, and did, drive prices — and profits — through the roof.In response, labor unions representing nurses, hospital staff and other frontline workers who were unable to be tested, or to obtain masks or gowns, protested and urged the Chamber to join a national mobilization to defeat the coronavirus. The appeal was not answered. On March 23, Markey and his Massachusetts colleague, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, wrote to the Chamber demanding an explanation. The Chamber’s response: Defense Production Act reliance was unnecessary, because “American companies will do whatever it takes to support America’s response to the pandemic and shore up the economy.”But what the workers had feared — insufficient production, soaring prices and profits, chaotic delivery mechanisms — took over the health care market during the first wave of virus spikes in the Northeast. Some hospitals were paying 15 times the usual price for masks.The Chamber continued its strenuous opposition to enabling the government to ensure an adequate supply of tests and PPE. Even Trump conceded that profiteering had taken over the market, and ultimately he did invoke the DPA to prevent it — but when it came to the export market.Supplies increased, but often at exorbitant prices. Only when the shutdowns of most of the American economy brought the number of hospitalizations down sharply did supply and demand come into temporary balance. Americans believed that if there was a second wave later in the year, at least health care workers on the front lines would have the tools they needed.Trump, denied by Chamber opposition of an easy pathway to acting like a heroic wartime president, seemingly lost interest. By June his focus had shifted from fighting the virus to reopening the economy and then reigniting the culture wars. Media headlines proclaiming his lack of interest didn’t even provoke “fake news” tweets from the East Wing of the White House.The virus had a longer attention span. With major states like Florida, Texas and Arizona opening rapidly and prematurely, the holes in the jerry-built testing, tracing and quarantine systems each state had fashioned without federal guidance gave the virus its chance.Cases — although not, initially, fatalities — began to soar. Suddenly, what any nationally coordinated effort would have been tracking and resolving all along — that the nation had stepped up production of tests, masks and gowns to meet the needs of an economy in shutdown, but had nowhere near the level of supplies for a massive second wave — came home to roost. By early July, new cases were flooding the hospital capacity of even some of the nation’s major health care centers, such as Houston.In New Orleans, testing centers had to close eight minutes after they opened. In 100-degree heat in Phoenix, lines at testing centers were eight hours long. San Antonio and Austin were forced to limit testing to those with symptoms, leaving the system utterly unable to detect asymptomatic cases, when research suggests that to 40% of infections take place. Wait times for test results soared with caseloads, so that even those who got tested might not find out they were positive until they were well past the contagious stage.Nurses were again forced to use one N95 mask for weeks at a time. Prices for what was actually available soared. States reported they could only fulfill 10% of their orders. Even now, in July, the U.S. has nothing like the 3.5 billion N95 masks that we knew in January we would need. Indeed, how could we? No manufacturer could have guessed in March how severe the crisis would be by fall. With no one managing the system, it was clearly foolish for any private company to produce, on speculation, several billion masks. Market signals cannot prepare America for the massive increase in possible scale required by such a pandemic. Nor can individual cities and states trigger the necessary ramp-up of supplies. Only a systematic national plan designed to ensure that we were ready for the worst-case scenario could have protected us.Inevitably, the “market solutions” favored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have failed America not once but twice. In failing, they have taken the nation’s economy over the precipice into a deep, long, economic decline. That the loudest voice claiming to represent U.S. business chose to defend profiteering, embrace short-term thinking and risk the collapse of the American health care system and economy is both shameful and shocking.And that most Americans, including me, had already forgotten this is scary. This is not the first time the Chamber has successfully pursued policies that put us enormously at risk — for years it has been one of the major forces preventing Washington from adopting even the most modest efforts to accelerate a transition off fossil fuels to save lives and protect the climate. But if the Chamber can get away once again with having caused massive economic damage while risking the health of millions, and with its public reputation unscathed, it’s unlikely to change its behavior.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/trump-says-hes-aiming-to-shield-corporations-from-legal-liability-for-workers-who-contract-covi-19-on-the-job" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/trump-says-hes-aiming-to-shield-corporations-from-legal-liability-for-workers-who-contract-covi-19-on-the-job</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div>Trump says he’s aiming to shield corporations from legal liability for workers who contract COVI-19 on the job</div><div>
</div><div>Written by Jake Johnson / Common Dreams April 21, 2020</div><div>
</div><div>President Donald Trump said during a press briefing Monday evening that his administration is aiming to shield corporations from legal responsibility for workers who contract the novel coronavirus on the job, a move that the Chamber of Commerce and right-wing advocacy groups are aggressively lobbying for as the White House pushes to reopen the U.S. economy against the warnings of public health experts.</div><div>
</div><div>“We are trying to take liability away from these companies,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s question on the subject. “We just don’t want that because we want the companies to open and to open strong. But I’ll get you a legal opinion on that.”</div><div>
</div><div>The president claimed that his administration has not previously discussed the issue of corporate liability, but the New York Times reported that business executives raised the matter with Trump in a conference call last week.</div><div>
</div><div>An “issue of great concern to the executives on the call,” according to the Times, “was the need to address the liability companies could face if employees got sick after returning to work, given the possibility that workers who felt that they were brought back too soon—or were not placed in a safe environment—could sue en masse.”</div><div>
</div><div>Additionally, the Washington Post reported earlier this month that Trump administration officials discussed including in the next stimulus package “a waiver that would clear businesses of liability from employees who contract the coronavirus on the job.”</div><div>
</div><div>Watch Trump’s remarks:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>JM Rieger</div><div>@RiegerReport</div><div>REPORTER: [If companies] have employees come back to work and they get sick will these companies be liable?</div><div>
</div><div>…</div><div>
</div><div>TRUMP: I’ll give you a legal answer to that when we look it up.</div><div>
</div><div>…</div><div>
</div><div>REPORTER: You guys haven’t discussed that yet?</div><div>
</div><div>TRUMP: Nobody’s discussed it, no. But we will now.</div><div>
</div><div>Embedded video</div><div>
</div><div>In a memo to its members last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the most powerful business lobbying group in the nation—said that legal action from workers who are infected by Covid-19 on the job is “perhaps the largest area of concern for the overall business community.”</div><div>
</div><div>The Chamber of Commerce “argues the sheer number of lawsuits could overwhelm businesses,” Roll Call reported.</div><div>
</div><div>“Businesses say they keep their workplaces safe,” Roll Call noted, “but the memo indicates that major corporations privately acknowledge that many so-called essential employees will get sick or die.”</div><div>
</div><div>Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-backed organization, is also urging lawmakers to protect corporations from responsibility for exposing their workers to the coronavirus.</div><div>
</div><div>As Common Dreams reported last week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been flooded with thousands of complaints from workers in recent weeks accusing employers of violating federal coronavirus guidelines and failing to provide adequate protective equipment.</div><div>
</div><div>Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in a series of tweets last week that “the whole point of making employers liable for risking the lives of their staff is to prevent them from exposing their staff to undue risk.”</div><div>
</div><div>“Businesses are asking for the right to expose their workers to fatal risks with no consequences. It’s bad economics and bad policy,” said Wolfers. “If this tweet sounds to you at all anti-business, let me be clear: I am absolutely against businesses profiting by exposing their workers to unconscionable risks of death.”</div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>---</div><div><a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/04/14/one-nation-pfizer-lobbyist-drug-prices/">https://theintercept.com/2020/04/14/one-nation-pfizer-lobbyist-drug-prices/</a></div><div>
</div><div>one  NATION, ONE of the dark-money <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/11/dark-money-group-one-nation-2018/" style="letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">groups</a> spending the most to back Republican candidates for Senate, added a former Pfizer lobbyist and U.S. Chamber of Commerce <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/about/board-of-directors" style="letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">board member</a> to its board of directors at the end of 2019. One Nation has spent <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1173141#blogHeader" style="letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$1.7 million</a> already this year on ads praising the efforts of Republican senators, including the push for lower drug prices, a cause both <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/represent/lobbying/r/301019364" style="letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Pfizer</a> and the Chamber have lobbied against. </div><div>
</div><div data-reactid="208" style="box-sizing: border-box;">The group is part of the network of conservative fundraisers — under the “Crossroads” umbrella — launched by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie after the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United. Former staffers for Crossroads GPS, the 501(c)(4) wing of Rove and Gillespie’s Super PAC, American Crossroads, started One Nation in 2015 after a yearslong <a href="https://democracy21.org/news-press/press-releases/treasury-department-inspector-generals-report-suggests-irs-is-headed-to-denying-crossroads-gps-status-as-501c4-tax-exempt-organization" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">fight</a> with the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status. Crossroads eventually received that status in <a href="https://leafferlaw.com/resources/irs-approves-crossroads-gps-as-exempt-501c4-after-six-years/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">2016</a>. Although the group has been relatively <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/senate-republicans-fundraising-241150" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">dormant</a> since <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C90011719/?tab=spending" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">2014</a>, it maintains <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/big-money-groups-aligned-with-senate-gop-raised-683-million-in-2019-an-off-year-record-officials-say/2020/01/22/d3993ddc-3d45-11ea-b90d-5652806c3b3a_story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">fundraising</a> efforts and ended 2019 with $35.5 million cash on hand. Ken W. Cole, who has long worked in government relations for companies like General Motors and Honeywell, as well as the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, joined the board of One Nation last year. The group listed Cole as a director on its latest annual report, filed to the Virginia State Corporation Commission in March, but he’s not yet listed publicly on its website.Cole <a href="https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=processSearchCriteria" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">lobbied</a> on behalf of <a href="https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=95B7C55F-2A87-45C9-91FA-40812C1CE63E&filingTypeID=64" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Pfizer</a> as senior vice president of government relations from 2010 to <a href="https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=D8EA4142-899B-445A-B3B1-68775F7E5A10&filingTypeID=82" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">February</a> <a href="https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/?index=%22lobbying-disclosures%22&size=10&matches=[%7B%22query%22:%22Kenneth%22,%22fields%22:[%22lobbyists.firstName%22]%7D,%7B%22query%22:%22Cole%22,%22fields%22:[%22lobbyists.lastName%22]%7D,%7B%22query%22:%22Pfizer%22,%22fields%22:[%22client.name%22]%7D]&filters=%7B%22reportYear%22:[%222018%22]%7D&sort=[%7B%22_score%22:true%7D,%7B%22field%22:%22registrant.name%22,%22order%22:%22asc%22%7D]" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">2018</a>, on <a href="https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2018/Q1/300957226.xml" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">issues</a> including <a href="https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2018/2A/300993978.xml" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">drug pricing</a> and drug shortages. Pfizer has placed the blame for high drug prices on health care providers and insurers, while it has fought recent legislative efforts aimed at reducing drug prices. Since at least <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141008203845/https://www.uschamber.com/about-us/board-directors" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">2014</a>, Cole has also served on the board for the Chamber of Commerce, which has similarly opposed legislative efforts to cut drug costs or allow the government to fine companies for inflating prices.</div><div data-reactid="219" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs//summary?topnumcycle=2020&toprecipcycle=All%20cycles&contribcycle=All%20cycles&lobcycle=All%20cycles&outspendcycle=All%20cycles&id=D000000138" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Pfizer</a> and the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2019&id=D000019798" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Chamber of Commerce</a> have collectively spent just under $1 billion on lobbying over the last decade, with Pfizer typically spending around $10 million each year, and the Chamber spending more than $60 million. In recent years, that included efforts to kill <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/prescription-pulse/2020/02/28/the-first-drug-coronavirus-linked-drug-shortage-488435" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">legislation</a> aimed at <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/stop-hr3" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">lowering</a> the cost of prescription drug prices, including a <a href="https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-wyden-release-legislative-text-finance-committee-passed-prescription" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">bipartisan</a> prescription <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/bills/specific_issues?client_id=D000000138&cycle=2019&id=s2543-116" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">drug-pricing</a> <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2543" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">bill</a> put forward last September by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. President Donald Trump has praised the bill and earlier this year <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/5/21123917/state-of-the-union-democrats-chanting-hr3-bill" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">called</a> on Congress to pass legislation to address rising drug costs. The Senate bill, which Grassley has <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/grassley-says-mitch-mcconnell-sabotaged-support-for-his-drug-pricing-bill.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">accused</a> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of sabotaging, remains deadlocked, while a companion <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3/actions?KWICView=false" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">bill</a> in the House, which <a href="https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=A37DADE9-8260-4F4D-9D76-6D0A3AC8DF71&filingTypeID=78" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Pfizer</a> and the Chamber also lobbied <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/letters-congress/us-chamber-letter-opposing-hr-3-the-lower-drug-costs-now-act-of-2019" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">against</a>, passed last year. The Chamber, meanwhile, <a href="https://www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/us-chamber-of-commerce-endorses-crapo-drug-pricing-bill" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">supported</a> a separate drug-pricing <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3129" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">bill</a> from Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/letters-congress/us-chamber-letter-supporting-s-3129-the-lower-costs-more-cures-act-of-2019" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">saying</a> that it “would help reduce drug prices without resorting to destructive price controls,” citing “inflation cap penalties” in the Grassley-Wyden bill and “government negotiation provisions” in the House bill. Cole is <a href="http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/GetDocument?aggregateId=flal-l19000012466-2a1c4d96-8765-4158-aed9-6d260e7f385a&transactionId=l19000012466-77f9bb15-5762-4060-bf82-dcdc4b2eb2f9&formatType=PDF" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">currently</a> the CEO and managing director of Cactus Consulting LLC, a firm registered in January 2019 in the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6834676-Cactus-Consulting-LLC1.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">District of Columbia</a>, with principal offices based in <a href="http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/corporationsearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=CACTUSCONSULTING%20L190000124660&aggregateId=flal-l19000012466-2a1c4d96-8765-4158-aed9-6d260e7f385a&searchTerm=CACTUS%20CONSULTING%20LLC&listNameOrder=CACTUSCONSULTING%20L190000124660" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Florida</a>. One Nation defended its board appointment of Cole, claiming that his work for Pfizer was not a conflict since he left the company early last year. “Ken has been a respected leader in a variety of different companies and industries. After he retired, we sought him out for his breadth of management experience and judgment,” One Nation President Steven Law said in a statement to The Intercept. “Our boards provide guidance on macro issues like financial controls, budgets, compensation and management policies. They do not direct day-to-day activities.”Law, the CEO of Crossroads GPS, American Crossroads, Senate Leadership Fund, and One Nation, is also a former chief of staff to McConnell and a former legal officer for the Chamber of Commerce. AS A 501(C)(4) GROUP, One Nation is not required to disclose its donors, but voluntary disclosures from a number of interest groups shed light on its funds. The dark-money group received <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/oil-refiner-andeavor-is-seven-figure-contributor-to-mcconnell-aligned-nonprofit/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">major contributions</a> of $1 million in 2016 and 2017 from <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/marathon-petroleum-andeavor-merger-checks-the-boxes-where-it-counts.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Andeavor</a>, an oil company <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2018/10/01/deal-done-andeavor-no-longer-a-publicly-traded.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">bought</a> in 2018 by an Ohio petroleum conglomerate. In 2018, One Nation also received <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556324-American-Petroleum-Institute-2018-990.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$50,000</a> from the American Petroleum Institute, and another <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521128863/201803189349300990/IRS990ScheduleI" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$50,000</a> from the Real Estate Roundtable in 2017. <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/27/joni-ernst-medicare-for-all-karl-rove-millions-spending-fundraising-transparency-campaign-senate/2088998001/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">One Nation</a> is the single largest group contributing to the Senate Leadership Fund, the McConnell-aligned Super PAC backing Republican Senate candidates. It’s the political action committee’s second-largest donor overall this cycle, after Blackstone CEO <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2020&cmte=C00571703" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Stephen Schwarzman</a>. It has also contributed to conservative groups working on <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/karl-rove-crossroads-gps-is-dead-long-live-dark-money-operation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">policy issues</a> like abortion and gun rights, like the <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/271937961/03_2019_prefixes_27-31%2F271937961_201712_990O_2019030816161178" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">National Rifle Association</a> and the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/11/dark-money-group-one-nation-2018/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Susan B. Anthony List</a>, an anti-abortion group. The group has spent more than $1 million already this year backing Maine Sen. Susan Collins, including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCUMF5roMg&feature=emb_title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">ads</a> in<a href="https://www.onenationamerica.org/one-nation-launches-advocacy-effort-to-lower-cost-of-insulin-for-diabetes/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;"> January</a>, <a href="https://www.onenationamerica.org/one-nation-continues-advocacy-effort-to-lower-cost-of-insulin-for-diabetes/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">February</a>, and <a href="https://www.onenationamerica.org/one-nation-continues-advocacy-effort-to-make-insulin-affordable-for-children/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">March</a> highlighting “Collins’ effort to lower the price of insulin.” Democrats note that Collins — like almost every other Republican — <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00395" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">voted</a> <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00395" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">against</a> the <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00394" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Affordable Care Act</a> and closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap. Collins has taken <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00000491&cycle=CAREER&type=I" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$431,604</a> from the pharmaceutical industry throughout her career. Collins, whose chances of securing a fifth term became <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/susan-collinss-popularity-keeps-sinking.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">less certain</a> after her vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and increased criticism over her stance on abortion rights, is facing a challenge from Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, backed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Betsy Sweet, backed by Justice Democrats. In the wake of Collins’s vote to confirm Kavanaugh, activist Ady Barkan <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/brett-kavanaugh-susan-collins-ady-barkan/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">helped</a> raise more than <a href="https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/fund-susan-collins-future-opponent/endorsements#endorsements" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$4 million</a> to support whoever wins the state’s Democratic primary in July. In addition to Collins, One Nation is backing Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst and started running <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOeq-yy35fA" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">ads</a> supporting her last year. On March 18, One Nation announced another <a href="https://www.onenationamerica.org/one-nation-launches-advocacy-effort-to-lower-the-cost-of-prescription-drugs-for-iowans/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$970,000</a> in television, radio, and digital ads praising Ernst as a champion for lower drug prices. Ernst said she supported, but did not sponsor, the Wyden-Grassley bill that Pfizer and the Chamber lobbied against, but voted against a 2017 <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00020" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">bill</a> that would have allowed the U.S. to import cheaper drugs from Canada. Ernst in 2018 co-sponsored a Republican-led <a href="https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/b1fd0e9e-400a-4ddf-99e6-a8bb68dfd7f7" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">bill</a> as <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-pre-existing-condition-promise-fraud_n_5b8053bfe4b0cd327dfc8a1c" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">part</a> of a party effort to <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-lying-pre-existing-conditions_n_5b8964a2e4b0162f4722ab9d" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">assuage fears</a> among its base after its successful repeal of parts of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans said the bill would protect people with preexisting conditions, but it would still have allowed insurers to discriminate against patients  for other reasons, or sell policies that don’t cover other medical problems, HuffPost <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-pre-existing-condition-promise-fraud_n_5b8053bfe4b0cd327dfc8a1c" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">reported</a>. Critics say it’s unsettling, if not unsurprising, that a McConnell-aligned dark-money group would add a former pharmaceutical lobbyist to its board while running ads celebrating Republican senators for pushing lower drug prices, a cause McConnell himself has stymied in Congress. “One Nation’s mission is to make sure that Republicans hold their majority in the Senate. They are going to craft their message around that,” said Robert Maguire, research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It does not mean that One Nation has staked out that policy. They think that voters in Maine want to hear that.” </div><div>=</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>320</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html</a></div><div>
</div><div><div class="widgetbrief">The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Trump</a> administration is trying mightily to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CEQ-2019-0003-0001" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">gut</a> the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the law that <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/02/what-trumps-proposed-nepa-rollback-could-mean-for-the-climate/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">mandates</a> rigorous, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">science</a>-based environmental impact reviews for major infrastructure and construction projects prior to federal permitting. NEPA also reserves significant time for the public to weigh in on the impact of projects to their communities.The loss of public input in the administration's proposed changes to NEPA has environmental justice leaders up in arms. For them, the silencing amounts to regulatory racism.</div><div class="js-appear-on-expand" style="transition: all 350ms ease 0s; height: auto; overflow: hidden; opacity: 1;"><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem1" data-id="1" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" data-basename="particle-1">At a Feb. 25 public hearing on the proposal in Washington, DC, Hilton Kelley, a 2011 Goldman Environmental Prize <a href="https://www.goldmanprize.org/blog/environmental-racism-in-america-spotlight-on-the-gulf-coast/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">winner</a> for his work in reducing emissions from petrochemical facilities and incinerators in Port Arthur, Texas, told the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that, with at least six explosions and plant accidents in his city over the last year, the events had become so common that children play basketball right through the noise and plumes."When you're talking about weakening NEPA and expediting a process, this is what happens," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/25/us/politics/bc-us-trump-environmental-rollbacks.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Kelley said,</a> as reported by The Associated Press. "Don't lessen the regulation. Don't silence our voices."That is precisely what the Trump administration is trying to do in <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/how-the-trump-administration-plans-to-gut-our-nations-bedrock-environmental-law" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">rewriting</a> the implementation guidelines for this bipartisan act signed by President Nixon and designed to allow the public input needed to <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-NEPA.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">ensure</a> that "man and nature can exist in productive harmony."Cheered on by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the <a href="https://www.unlockamericaninvestment.com/about/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">nation's leading</a> fossil fuel, chemical, construction, manufacturing, airline, trucking and farming interests, the Trump administration is trying to cut the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/20200110FINAL-FACT-SHEET-v3.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">average</a> time for environmental reviews by more than half.The Trump NEPA rewrite would <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2020/01/16/479454/5-ways-trumps-latest-anti-environmental-proposal-allow-fossil-fuel-companies-bulldoze-communities/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">undermine</a> the act by allowing companies and contractors to write up their own environmental reviews. It would free builders of chemical and petrochemical factories, oil and gas pipelines, highways, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">port terminals</a> and other infrastructure from accounting for the cumulative effects over time of pollution, <a href="https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-publications/ccenepa/sec1.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">land and wetland loss and erosion</a>.Plant owners seeking federal approval would no longer need to fret about indirect effects of downstream and downwind <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">pollution</a>, nor about a facility's contribution to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">climate change</a>.</div><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem2" data-id="2" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" data-basename="particle-2"><h3 style="display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center;">More Harm to Communities Already Under Siege</h3>For communities long polluted by industry, which are <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/11/702348935/study-finds-racial-gap-between-who-causes-air-pollution-and-who-breathes-it" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">disproportionately poor and of color</a>, the Trump administration's changes promise particular devastation. Such communities already suffer higher rates of illnesses from asthma to cancer, life-altering effects such as low birth weight and cognitive child development, and daily insults to quality of life in diesel exhaust, soot penetrating into homes and contaminated yards and playgrounds.If the administration has its way, NEPA implementation guidelines would be rewritten so that even in neighborhoods already densely packed with toxic industries, a proposed facility need only assess its own pollutants, not how much they combine and compound those of nearby facilities to worsen the overall quality of air, water and land.To make sure residents cannot complain about such compounded damage, the Trump administration is trying to severely limit the opportunity for mothers, fathers, seniors, teens and community leaders to speak directly to the government.The rollout of the proposed changes is a case in point. Despite the sweeping environmental risks Americans currently face, with <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/let-the-children-breathe-particulate-matter-how-the-trump-administrations-polluted-policies-are-hurting-children" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">air pollution</a> that kills <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/18/8775.full.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">100,000 people per year</a> and 77 million Americans drinking tap water in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/tapwater-drinking-water-study.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">violation </a>of health regulations, the White House Council on Environmental Quality allowed only two hearings on the proposed changes to NEPA before the close of public comment period March 10, in Washington, DC, and in Denver. By way of comparison, The Washington Post reported that major issues involving NEPA usually get around nine hearings.One community leader who did get into the Washington hearing called out the cynicism of the Trump administration for its scant public scheduling. Belinda Joyner of Northampton County, North Carolina, who has <a href="https://energynews.us/2017/12/01/southeast/critics-highlight-atlantic-coast-pipelines-environmental-justice-impact/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">spoken out</a> against dumping in her lower-income African American community by a wood pellet facility, <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article237592194.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">industrial-scale hog farms</a> and a part of the proposed Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/25/us/politics/bc-us-trump-environmental-rollbacks.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">told the CEQ panel</a>, "You act like you're listening, and I'm not going to say you're not. But we see the results of these hearings."In Denver, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous-peoples" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">indigenous Americans</a> spoke out strongly against the destruction of NEPA. Seventeen-year-old Navajo Najhozhoni Rain Ben drove seven and a half hours <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2020/02/11/nepa-review-denver-hearing/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">to say</a> to the CEQ panel, "We shouldn't be talking about this. We should be implementing plans for the future. This is not for the future. This is for profit." Musician and spoken word artist Lyla June Johnston, also Navajo, drove six hours from Santa Fe to <a href="https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2020/02/11/nepa-hearing-denver/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">tell</a> the panel that the proposed changes were "a slap in the face to our democracy — a slap in the face to the integrity of our mother earth."</div><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem3" data-id="3" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3" data-basename="particle-3"><h3 style="display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center;">The Modern Need for NEPA</h3>NEPA originally was conceived amid growing public awareness and outrage in the 1960s over river and lake pollution, pesticide poisoning of birds, highway proposals that would blast communities apart, and tanker oil spills that fouled beaches and wiped out wildlife. There is no less need for it today as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">climate change</a> is already slapping America and the world in the face with more devastating storms, chronic coastal flooding, deadly heat waves, western and Alaskan <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">wildfires</a> and acceleration of species extinction.There is arguably even more of an immediate need for NEPA in communities that were dumping grounds long before the concept of climate change, even before the signing of the act itself. It has been <a href="https://www.naacp.org/climate-justice-resources/fumes-across-fence-line/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">proven beyond coincidence</a> that — similar to the tobacco industry marketing to vulnerable populations — toxic industries and builders of massive infrastructure projects <a href="https://comingcleaninc.org/assets/media/images/Reports/Who%27s%20in%20Danger%20Report%20FINAL.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">target locales</a> where they assume residents will offer the least political resistance.That significantly explains the shameless shoehorning of petrochemical plants into Louisiana's <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/st-james-louisiana-plastic-petrochemicals-buy-out/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Cancer Alley</a> in predominantly African American areas. That explains the routing of the Keystone XL pipeline and the <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/national-environmental-policy-act-nepa/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Dakota Access Pipeline</a> through lands and over waters indigenous Americans consider sacred, and the Atlantic Bridge pipeline protested by Joyner. It explains the <a href="https://prospect.org/greennewdeal/toxic-injustices-little-village-chicago/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">concentration</a> of industry in heavily Latino and African American Southeast Chicago, which is dealing with an <a href="https://prospect.org/power/epa-rollbacks-hurting-americans-live/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">endless siege</a> of dust and neurotoxic contamination from coal ash, lead, and manganese dust.That explains the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/21/roads-nowhere-infrastructure-american-inequality" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">ramrodding</a> of roads through redlined communities and why people of color drove or flew hundreds and thousands of miles for the only two hearings offered by this administration. They said the NEPA, especially in a White House that is also <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2018/06/Catalyst-Spring-2018.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">hollowing out</a> the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is one of the last tools standing between them and a wholesale hostile invasion by industry.</div><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem4" data-id="4" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4" data-basename="hope-in-the-courts"><h3 style="display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center;">Hope in the Courts</h3>There is a glimmer of hope that the U.S. courts will determine that President Trump and his industrial partners are reaching <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062092145" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">too far</a> in the rewrite of NEPA, as it relates to environmental racism. Take the Atlantic Bridge Pipeline, which is in the public eye for its upcoming Supreme Court case on whether it can transect the hallowed federal Appalachian Trail.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-delivers-another-blow-to-atlantic-coast-pipeline/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">recently vacated</a> a Virginia state permit for a compressor station along the pipeline because developer Dominion Energy did not adequately assess its environmental impact on the historic African American host town of Union Hill. The town <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/federal-court-revokes-gas-project-permit-in-win-for-historic-african-american-community/2020/01/07/76bb3538-3170-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">was founded</a> by free African Americans and formerly enslaved people. The federal courts have also sent other fossil fuel projects and Trump administration oil and gas leases back to the drawing board for their inadequate consideration of environmental and climate impacts."Five years ago, Dominion told us that there was going to be a compressor station in Union Hill and there was nothing we could do about it," Chad Oba, president of a Union Hill coalition protesting the Atlantic Coast Pipeline compressor, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/477199-atlantic-coast-pipeline-loses-permit-battle-with-historically-black" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">said in The Hill.</a> "That's not fair, and it's not American. This is a win for a group of citizens who were committed to protecting their community and never ever gave up."Such victories give hope that this is one rollback the Trump administration may not ultimately get away with. The assault on NEPA is so sweeping and blatant in its turning control of the environment over to industry, it is sure to receive a massive court challenge from environmental groups and environmental justice advocates. If communities like Union Hill refused to give up, there is no reason for anyone opposed to the rewriting of NEPA to throw in the towel, either. There is still time before the March 10 deadline for <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/10/2019-28106/update-to-the-regulations-implementing-the-procedural-provisions-of-the-national-environmental" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">public comment.</a>Recently, Union of Concerned Scientists colleague Adrienne Hollis interviewed Mildred McClain, an <a href="https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200218/savannah-heads-toward-clean-energy-goal" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">environmental justice leader</a> in Savannah, Georgia, about the importance of NEPA. McClain <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/adrienne-hollis/conversation-with-the-nepa-ninja" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">recalled</a> how the act gave her community a voice against the dumping of nuclear waste and unchecked widening of the Savannah River for container ships."If it had not been for NEPA," McClain said, "the community would not have been a part of the process."It's important to recognize that taking communities of color out of the process is a major goal in the administration's efforts to gut NEPA. When President Trump announced the rewrite, he was — by no small coincidence — flanked by a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/10/fossil-fuel-interests-applaud-trump-weakening-nepa-environmental-policy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">nearly all-white</a> phalanx of supporters as he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-proposed-national-environmental-policy-act-regulations/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">claimed</a> with a straight face, "We're maintaining America's world-class standards of environmental protection. We have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water on Earth. And for our country, the air is, right now, cleaner than it's been in 40 years."For the past two generations, NEPA has offered a powerful tool for the protection of the nation's environment. If the Trump administration succeeds in ripping it apart and turning environmental reviews over to industry, we will risk the dirtiest air and water of any developed nation on Earth, cementing this nation as a hotbed of environmental racism.The deadline for public comments on the proposed changes to NEPA closes this Tuesday. <a href="https://secure.ucsusa.org/onlineactions/5J0luZa4YkiUmcMR656c9g2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw&ms=twitter" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Submit your comment today</a>.</div>Reposted with permission from the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/jane-fonda-climate-candidate-2645422952.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.<div class="around-the-web" style="margin-top: 20px !important;"><div class="from-your-siteheadline" style="font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; visibility: hidden !important; margin-bottom: -5px !important;"><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="from-your-siteitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-attacking-nepa-2644853997.html" class="from-your-sitelink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="from-your-siteitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nepa-threatened-2570786571.html" class="from-your-sitelink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="from-your-siteitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/2020-democratic-candidates-climate-debate-petition-2634869782.html" class="from-your-sitelink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li></ul><div class="around-the-webheadline" style="visibility: hidden; margin-top: 20px !important; margin-bottom: -5px !important;"><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2019/12/10/478472/trump-administration-poised-gut-environmental-review-whats-stake/" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200109" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://psmag.com/environment/how-trump-plans-to-gut-nepa-environment" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li></ul></div></div></div><div>=</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>320</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html</a></div><div>
</div><div><div class="widgetbrief">The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Trump</a> administration is trying mightily to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CEQ-2019-0003-0001" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">gut</a> the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the law that <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/02/what-trumps-proposed-nepa-rollback-could-mean-for-the-climate/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">mandates</a> rigorous, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">science</a>-based environmental impact reviews for major infrastructure and construction projects prior to federal permitting. NEPA also reserves significant time for the public to weigh in on the impact of projects to their communities.The loss of public input in the administration's proposed changes to NEPA has environmental justice leaders up in arms. For them, the silencing amounts to regulatory racism.</div><div class="js-appear-on-expand" style="transition: all 350ms ease 0s; height: auto; overflow: hidden; opacity: 1;"><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem1" data-id="1" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" data-basename="particle-1">At a Feb. 25 public hearing on the proposal in Washington, DC, Hilton Kelley, a 2011 Goldman Environmental Prize <a href="https://www.goldmanprize.org/blog/environmental-racism-in-america-spotlight-on-the-gulf-coast/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">winner</a> for his work in reducing emissions from petrochemical facilities and incinerators in Port Arthur, Texas, told the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that, with at least six explosions and plant accidents in his city over the last year, the events had become so common that children play basketball right through the noise and plumes."When you're talking about weakening NEPA and expediting a process, this is what happens," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/25/us/politics/bc-us-trump-environmental-rollbacks.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Kelley said,</a> as reported by The Associated Press. "Don't lessen the regulation. Don't silence our voices."That is precisely what the Trump administration is trying to do in <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/how-the-trump-administration-plans-to-gut-our-nations-bedrock-environmental-law" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">rewriting</a> the implementation guidelines for this bipartisan act signed by President Nixon and designed to allow the public input needed to <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-NEPA.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">ensure</a> that "man and nature can exist in productive harmony."Cheered on by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the <a href="https://www.unlockamericaninvestment.com/about/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">nation's leading</a> fossil fuel, chemical, construction, manufacturing, airline, trucking and farming interests, the Trump administration is trying to cut the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/20200110FINAL-FACT-SHEET-v3.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">average</a> time for environmental reviews by more than half.The Trump NEPA rewrite would <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2020/01/16/479454/5-ways-trumps-latest-anti-environmental-proposal-allow-fossil-fuel-companies-bulldoze-communities/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">undermine</a> the act by allowing companies and contractors to write up their own environmental reviews. It would free builders of chemical and petrochemical factories, oil and gas pipelines, highways, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">port terminals</a> and other infrastructure from accounting for the cumulative effects over time of pollution, <a href="https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-publications/ccenepa/sec1.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">land and wetland loss and erosion</a>.Plant owners seeking federal approval would no longer need to fret about indirect effects of downstream and downwind <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">pollution</a>, nor about a facility's contribution to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">climate change</a>.</div><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem2" data-id="2" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" data-basename="particle-2"><h3 style="display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center;">More Harm to Communities Already Under Siege</h3>For communities long polluted by industry, which are <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/11/702348935/study-finds-racial-gap-between-who-causes-air-pollution-and-who-breathes-it" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">disproportionately poor and of color</a>, the Trump administration's changes promise particular devastation. Such communities already suffer higher rates of illnesses from asthma to cancer, life-altering effects such as low birth weight and cognitive child development, and daily insults to quality of life in diesel exhaust, soot penetrating into homes and contaminated yards and playgrounds.If the administration has its way, NEPA implementation guidelines would be rewritten so that even in neighborhoods already densely packed with toxic industries, a proposed facility need only assess its own pollutants, not how much they combine and compound those of nearby facilities to worsen the overall quality of air, water and land.To make sure residents cannot complain about such compounded damage, the Trump administration is trying to severely limit the opportunity for mothers, fathers, seniors, teens and community leaders to speak directly to the government.The rollout of the proposed changes is a case in point. Despite the sweeping environmental risks Americans currently face, with <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/let-the-children-breathe-particulate-matter-how-the-trump-administrations-polluted-policies-are-hurting-children" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">air pollution</a> that kills <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/18/8775.full.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">100,000 people per year</a> and 77 million Americans drinking tap water in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/tapwater-drinking-water-study.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">violation </a>of health regulations, the White House Council on Environmental Quality allowed only two hearings on the proposed changes to NEPA before the close of public comment period March 10, in Washington, DC, and in Denver. By way of comparison, The Washington Post reported that major issues involving NEPA usually get around nine hearings.One community leader who did get into the Washington hearing called out the cynicism of the Trump administration for its scant public scheduling. Belinda Joyner of Northampton County, North Carolina, who has <a href="https://energynews.us/2017/12/01/southeast/critics-highlight-atlantic-coast-pipelines-environmental-justice-impact/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">spoken out</a> against dumping in her lower-income African American community by a wood pellet facility, <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article237592194.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">industrial-scale hog farms</a> and a part of the proposed Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/25/us/politics/bc-us-trump-environmental-rollbacks.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">told the CEQ panel</a>, "You act like you're listening, and I'm not going to say you're not. But we see the results of these hearings."In Denver, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous-peoples" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">indigenous Americans</a> spoke out strongly against the destruction of NEPA. Seventeen-year-old Navajo Najhozhoni Rain Ben drove seven and a half hours <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2020/02/11/nepa-review-denver-hearing/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">to say</a> to the CEQ panel, "We shouldn't be talking about this. We should be implementing plans for the future. This is not for the future. This is for profit." Musician and spoken word artist Lyla June Johnston, also Navajo, drove six hours from Santa Fe to <a href="https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2020/02/11/nepa-hearing-denver/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">tell</a> the panel that the proposed changes were "a slap in the face to our democracy — a slap in the face to the integrity of our mother earth."</div><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem3" data-id="3" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3" data-basename="particle-3"><h3 style="display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center;">The Modern Need for NEPA</h3>NEPA originally was conceived amid growing public awareness and outrage in the 1960s over river and lake pollution, pesticide poisoning of birds, highway proposals that would blast communities apart, and tanker oil spills that fouled beaches and wiped out wildlife. There is no less need for it today as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">climate change</a> is already slapping America and the world in the face with more devastating storms, chronic coastal flooding, deadly heat waves, western and Alaskan <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">wildfires</a> and acceleration of species extinction.There is arguably even more of an immediate need for NEPA in communities that were dumping grounds long before the concept of climate change, even before the signing of the act itself. It has been <a href="https://www.naacp.org/climate-justice-resources/fumes-across-fence-line/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">proven beyond coincidence</a> that — similar to the tobacco industry marketing to vulnerable populations — toxic industries and builders of massive infrastructure projects <a href="https://comingcleaninc.org/assets/media/images/Reports/Who%27s%20in%20Danger%20Report%20FINAL.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">target locales</a> where they assume residents will offer the least political resistance.That significantly explains the shameless shoehorning of petrochemical plants into Louisiana's <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/st-james-louisiana-plastic-petrochemicals-buy-out/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Cancer Alley</a> in predominantly African American areas. That explains the routing of the Keystone XL pipeline and the <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/national-environmental-policy-act-nepa/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Dakota Access Pipeline</a> through lands and over waters indigenous Americans consider sacred, and the Atlantic Bridge pipeline protested by Joyner. It explains the <a href="https://prospect.org/greennewdeal/toxic-injustices-little-village-chicago/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">concentration</a> of industry in heavily Latino and African American Southeast Chicago, which is dealing with an <a href="https://prospect.org/power/epa-rollbacks-hurting-americans-live/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">endless siege</a> of dust and neurotoxic contamination from coal ash, lead, and manganese dust.That explains the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/21/roads-nowhere-infrastructure-american-inequality" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">ramrodding</a> of roads through redlined communities and why people of color drove or flew hundreds and thousands of miles for the only two hearings offered by this administration. They said the NEPA, especially in a White House that is also <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2018/06/Catalyst-Spring-2018.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">hollowing out</a> the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is one of the last tools standing between them and a wholesale hostile invasion by industry.</div><div class=" rebellt-item is--desktop col1" id="rebelltitem4" data-id="4" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-gutting-nepa-2645437802.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4" data-basename="hope-in-the-courts"><h3 style="display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center;">Hope in the Courts</h3>There is a glimmer of hope that the U.S. courts will determine that President Trump and his industrial partners are reaching <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062092145" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">too far</a> in the rewrite of NEPA, as it relates to environmental racism. Take the Atlantic Bridge Pipeline, which is in the public eye for its upcoming Supreme Court case on whether it can transect the hallowed federal Appalachian Trail.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-delivers-another-blow-to-atlantic-coast-pipeline/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">recently vacated</a> a Virginia state permit for a compressor station along the pipeline because developer Dominion Energy did not adequately assess its environmental impact on the historic African American host town of Union Hill. The town <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/federal-court-revokes-gas-project-permit-in-win-for-historic-african-american-community/2020/01/07/76bb3538-3170-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">was founded</a> by free African Americans and formerly enslaved people. The federal courts have also sent other fossil fuel projects and Trump administration oil and gas leases back to the drawing board for their inadequate consideration of environmental and climate impacts."Five years ago, Dominion told us that there was going to be a compressor station in Union Hill and there was nothing we could do about it," Chad Oba, president of a Union Hill coalition protesting the Atlantic Coast Pipeline compressor, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/477199-atlantic-coast-pipeline-loses-permit-battle-with-historically-black" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">said in The Hill.</a> "That's not fair, and it's not American. This is a win for a group of citizens who were committed to protecting their community and never ever gave up."Such victories give hope that this is one rollback the Trump administration may not ultimately get away with. The assault on NEPA is so sweeping and blatant in its turning control of the environment over to industry, it is sure to receive a massive court challenge from environmental groups and environmental justice advocates. If communities like Union Hill refused to give up, there is no reason for anyone opposed to the rewriting of NEPA to throw in the towel, either. There is still time before the March 10 deadline for <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/10/2019-28106/update-to-the-regulations-implementing-the-procedural-provisions-of-the-national-environmental" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">public comment.</a>Recently, Union of Concerned Scientists colleague Adrienne Hollis interviewed Mildred McClain, an <a href="https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200218/savannah-heads-toward-clean-energy-goal" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">environmental justice leader</a> in Savannah, Georgia, about the importance of NEPA. McClain <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/adrienne-hollis/conversation-with-the-nepa-ninja" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">recalled</a> how the act gave her community a voice against the dumping of nuclear waste and unchecked widening of the Savannah River for container ships."If it had not been for NEPA," McClain said, "the community would not have been a part of the process."It's important to recognize that taking communities of color out of the process is a major goal in the administration's efforts to gut NEPA. When President Trump announced the rewrite, he was — by no small coincidence — flanked by a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/10/fossil-fuel-interests-applaud-trump-weakening-nepa-environmental-policy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">nearly all-white</a> phalanx of supporters as he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-proposed-national-environmental-policy-act-regulations/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">claimed</a> with a straight face, "We're maintaining America's world-class standards of environmental protection. We have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water on Earth. And for our country, the air is, right now, cleaner than it's been in 40 years."For the past two generations, NEPA has offered a powerful tool for the protection of the nation's environment. If the Trump administration succeeds in ripping it apart and turning environmental reviews over to industry, we will risk the dirtiest air and water of any developed nation on Earth, cementing this nation as a hotbed of environmental racism.The deadline for public comments on the proposed changes to NEPA closes this Tuesday. <a href="https://secure.ucsusa.org/onlineactions/5J0luZa4YkiUmcMR656c9g2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw&ms=twitter" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Submit your comment today</a>.</div>Reposted with permission from the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/jane-fonda-climate-candidate-2645422952.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5;">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.<div class="around-the-web" style="margin-top: 20px !important;"><div class="from-your-siteheadline" style="font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; visibility: hidden !important; margin-bottom: -5px !important;"><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="from-your-siteitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-attacking-nepa-2644853997.html" class="from-your-sitelink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="from-your-siteitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nepa-threatened-2570786571.html" class="from-your-sitelink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="from-your-siteitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/2020-democratic-candidates-climate-debate-petition-2634869782.html" class="from-your-sitelink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li></ul><div class="around-the-webheadline" style="visibility: hidden; margin-top: 20px !important; margin-bottom: -5px !important;"><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2019/12/10/478472/trump-administration-poised-gut-environmental-review-whats-stake/" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200109" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://psmag.com/environment/how-trump-plans-to-gut-nepa-environment" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"></a></li></ul></div></div></div><div>=</div>BP Calls It Quits with 3 Trade Associations, but Continues Membership in NAM, API, US Chamberno lnxBritish Petroleum (BP) is working to clean up its climate image. In the two months since environmental law nonprofit Client Earth filed a complaint against the UK oil giant with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) alleging its ads were misleading, BP has announced intentions to reach “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050,  stop all “corporate reputation” advertising and, now, withdraw from trade associations with approaches on climate that are out of step with its values.The company announced this week it will resign its membership in the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and will not renew its membership with the Western Energy Alliance (WEA).The decision came after BP conducted a review comparing the climate-related policies of several trade associations to its own. The company found its policies are not aligned with those of the AFPM, WSPA and WEA.BP cited WEA’s opposition of federal methane regulation as a main area of misalignment. BP said “recent and developing differences in the area of carbon pricing” have contributed to its decision to leave the WSPA, as has its current focus on stopping a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) initiative in Washington state. But while proclaiming to support a tax on carbon, BP contributed nearly $13 million to a campaign by the WSPA to help defeat a Washington state carbon emissions fee initiative in 2018.BP listed disagreements over carbon pricing as the main reason for leaving the AFPM.However, BP will remain a member of the American Petroleum Institute (AP), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), despite finding that its policies are only partially aligned with those groups. According to its review, BP disagrees with the API’s opposition to the federal regulation of methane, disagrees with NAM over its opposition to carbon pricing and differs from the Chamber’s approach to climate science and emissions reduction efforts.Yet for now, BP will remain a member of these groups, despite the fact that the API, U.S. Chamber and NAM are well-known architects of climate science denial.“A company like BP that engages with trade associations is doing a constant cost-benefit calculation--to what extent does this group represent BP's interest and its policy advocacy versus pose a reputational risk for the company with its own investors, and with the public," said Kathryn Mulvey, climate accountability campaign manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Clearly the fact that the company is staying with the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers, despite finding only partial alignment indicates that there's a calculation being made on its part.”BP is not the first oil major to call it quits with the AFPM. Shell withdrew its membership last year in response to pressure from investors. It continued its membership with the WSPA despite finding “some misalignment” between its own policies and those of the WSPA. Shell appears to have discontinued its WEA membership in 2016.AFPM president and chief executive officer Chet Thompson said the association is disappointed."As a member of our executive committee they know that AFPM is and has been committed to supporting policies that address climate change. Because of that, it leads us to assume that this decision was made based on factors other than our actual positions on the issues,” Thompson said in a statement without specifying what those factors are.The split could ratchet up the pressure on ExxonMobil and Chevron, along with other oil companies to examine their trade association membership, Mulvey said."We would expect it would make it a good deal harder for major oil and gas companies to hide behind third-party lobby groups,” she said.  “We're starting to see a real new norm in terms of transparency, regarding climate policy positions and also action to address misalignment and inconsistency of trade group positions with stated company positions.”BP said it will conduct its next review in two years and plans to provide periodic, internal updates to its board of directors and stakeholders. It did not rule out potentially withdrawing from more trade associations in the future.“BP will pursue opportunities to work with organizations who share our ambitious and progressive approach to the energy transition. And when differences arise we will be transparent. But if our views cannot be reconciled, we will be prepared to part company,” said BP chief executive officer Bernard Looney in a statement, adding that the industry has long demonstrated it can collaborate effectively through trade associations.“My hope is that in the coming years we can add climate to the long list of areas where, as an industry, we work together for a greater good,” Looney added.Catherine Rheis-Boyd, president of the WSPA resident said her group and its members will continue to talk with BP and other stakeholders regarding the creation of a sustainable energy future.“Our members know the way the world produces, distributes and consumes energy is evolving, and our industry will remain leaders in investing in and developing the diverse energy sources and technologies we need for the future,” Reheis-Boyd said. “Working together as an industry, we will rise to the challenge of a changing climate.”The WEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Mulvey said while BP is clearly concerned about its reputation and has pledged to be at net zero, whether the company will take the necessary steps remains to be seen. The company has so far only mentioned carbon capture technology and carbon offsets as methods to achieving net zero, promising to provide more details in September, nine months after its announcement.Meanwhile, the company has pulled its “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign (the source of the Client Earth OECD complaint), but has been advertising its net zero commitment quite a bit on social media and in search engines.BP’s withdrawal from the three associations does make one thing clear, Mulvey said."It lays down a gauntlet for ExxonMobil and Chevron to really step up or they may be understood, by the investor community in particular, to be falling behind their competitors."<div class="3sZWk blog-post-title-font igE5v _2lmPI Qz_XW" data-hook="post-title" style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 9px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 740px;"><h2 class="2MNte post-title post-titletext blog-post-title-color blog-hover-container-element-color" data-hook="post-title" style="margin: 1px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;"><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; display: -webkit-box; -webkit-line-clamp: 2;">BP Calls It Quits with 3 Trade Associations, but Continues Membership in NAM, API, US Chamber</div></h2></div><a class="1NTXA igE5v _2lmPI" href="https://www.drillednews.com/post/bp-calls-it-quits-with-3-trade-associations-but-continues-membership-in-nam-api-us-chamber" target="top" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); width: 100%; height: 100%; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" /><div class="-RDEl igE5v blog-post-description-font Qz_XW" data-hook="post-description" style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 23px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="1Uunh post-excerpt" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; opacity: 0.8; word-break: break-word; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;"><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; display: -webkit-box; -webkit-line-clamp: 2;"><div class="AB7h6" data-hook="post-description" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.5; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;"><a class="1NTXA igE5v 2lmPI" href="https://www.drillednews.com/post/bp-calls-it-quits-with-3-trade-associations-but-continues-membership-in-nam-api-us-chamber" target="top" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); width: 100%; height: 100%; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a class="1NTXA igE5v _2lmPI" href="https://www.drillednews.com/post/bp-calls-it-quits-with-3-trade-associations-but-continues-membership-in-nam-api-us-chamber" target="top" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); width: 100%; height: 100%; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a class="1NTXA igE5v _2lmPI" href="https://www.drillednews.com/post/bp-calls-it-quits-with-3-trade-associations-but-continues-membership-in-nam-api-us-chamber" target="top" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); width: 100%; height: 100%; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">On the heels of its net zero announcement and commitment to stop corporate reputation ads, BP withdraws from three trade groups over climate</a></div></div></div></div><a class="1NTXA igE5v _2lmPI" href="https://www.drillednews.com/post/bp-calls-it-quits-with-3-trade-associations-but-continues-membership-in-nam-api-us-chamber" target="top" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); width: 100%; height: 100%; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>lee f</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/02/15/dark-money-irs-reporting-501c">https://theintercept.com/2020/02/15/dark-money-irs-reporting-501c</a></div><div>
</div><div><div data-reactid="211" style="box-sizing: border-box;">DARK MONEY GROUPS backed by foreign corporate donors are supporting the Trump administration’s decision to roll back one of the last remaining ways for authorities to monitor the flow of unlawful campaign cash in American elections.In recent years, 501(c) nonprofits have become the entities of choice for secret campaign spending. These nonprofit groups, which do not have to report any donor information to the public, can receive unlimited contributions from any source and, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, spend unlimited amounts on elections.Foreign spending, whether by a foreign national or a foreign-owned corporation, is still illegal under federal law. But the law has been poorly enforced, and the few instances in which <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/03/11/intercept-investigation-leads-to-record-fines-over-foreign-campaign-contributions/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">penalties</a> have been applied in recent years have come in reaction to publicly reported foreign corporate spending to Super PACs, such as The Intercept’s reporting on Chinese <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/gop-lawyer-chinese-owned-company-us-presidential-politics/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">corporate donations</a> in 2016 and the recent <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-foreign-born-men-who-helped-giuliani-on-ukraine-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges-11570714188" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">federal indictment</a> over a shell company owned by a Russian national that gave to President Donald Trump’s Super PAC in 2018.The one check on foreign contributions to dark-money groups has been the Schedule B form, which reports 501(c) donor information confidentially to the Internal Revenue Service. Under a new rule <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/treasury-and-irs-issue-proposed-regulations-and-provide-relief-for-certain-tax-exempt-organizations" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">proposed</a> last September by the Treasury Department and the IRS, nonprofits will no longer be required to report donor information, even to the government, allowing an unprecedented level of secrecy.Lobbyists for foreign-funded groups have pushed the administration to move forward with the rule, which is close to being finalized.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobby organization in the world, spent over $10 million to influence the last 2018 midterm election cycle using its general fund. The group, which has foreign corporate donors, has lobbied in support of the IRS rule to repeal the Schedule B requirement, claiming in a letter to officials that the accidental leak of donors could reduce corporate free speech rights.</div><div data-reactid="222" style="box-sizing: border-box;">“Identifying, harassing, and intimidating the organization’s supporters is a chief means of silencing that organization’s speech,” wrote Caroline L. Harris, the Chambers’ chief tax policy counsel, and Ryan P. Meyers, the deputy general counsel of the group, in a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6776203-U-S-Chamber-Comments-REG-102508-16-IRS-Final-1.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">regulatory letter</a> to officials overseeing the rule change. “The Chamber applauds the work of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in eliminating onerous reporting requirements.”The National Association of Manufacturers, which counts several corporations based in foreign countries as members, in a letter to IRS officials, similarly <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6776202-NAM.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">called</a> the Schedule B requirement an “unnecessary administrative filings that raise the potential for misuse in a way that chills protected speech.”Both NAM and the Chamber of Commerce, which spends more than <a href="https://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530045720/530045720_201712_990O.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$160 million</a> a year, are organized as 501(c)(6) trade associations and under no obligation to disclose donor money to the public — only to the government through the annual Schedule B form to its 990 annual filing. After the Citizens United decision, the two groups led an <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/politics/u-s-chamber-gop-block-election-ad-transparency-bill/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">effort</a> to defeat the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would have forced groups engaged high-dollar election advocacy to reveal donor information. The Chamber also <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/06/29/obama-white-house-demands-congress-fix-dark-money-obama-refuses/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">lobbied</a> successfully to stop President Barack Obama from issuing an executive order to force government contractors to disclose grants to 501(c) groups.Foreign-based firms such as Brazilian petrochemical firm <a href="https://www.brazilcouncil.org/membership/member-companies/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Braskem</a>, <a href="https://www.usbahraincouncil.com/council-members/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Al Zayani Investments</a> in Bahrain, and Turkish conglomerate <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/international/middle-east-and-turkey/us-turkey-business-council/us-turkey-business-council-members" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Tekfen</a> are listed on the Chamber’s website as dues-paying members. Faced with <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/chamber-under-fire-for-foreign-cash-043144" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">criticism</a> in the past that its foreign funding might bleed into the Chamber’s vast domestic lobbying and campaign spending budget, the group has <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-foreign-money-us-chamber-commerce-ads/story?id=11853117" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">claimed</a> that any foreign donations are walled off from domestic funds, and that foreign donors make up a small percentage of its overall budget.But the removal of the Schedule B requirement could make those claims impossible to verify. A large foreign national firm could provide multimillion-dollar donations for use in U.S. elections to the Chamber under the new rule and such giving would never be reported to government officials.That’s precisely the danger of removing Schedule B forms, campaign finance experts warn. The Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog that has filed the ethics complaints that led to <a href="https://campaignlegal.org/update/real-backstory-arrest-two-ukrainian-american-trump-donors" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">enforcement action</a> on foreign money in the past, cautioned the IRS that the rule would simply open the door to more foreign spending.“Congress has failed to pass new transparency legislation, and the FEC has failed to enforce the transparency laws that are on the books,” said Brendan Fischer, director of Campaign Legal Center’s federal reform program. “As a result, the only donor disclosure reports that dark-money groups file with any federal agency are the confidential Schedule B reports filed with the IRS. These confidential donor reports are one of the few ways that federal agencies could detect and deter foreign money in U.S. elections.”It’s not hard to comprehend the many ways in which completely secret legal entities could incentivize illegal election behavior. In 2016, reporters from the Telegraph conducted a sting operation on a Republican campaign operative working in support of Trump. The operative was offered a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">$2 million</a> check from a Chinese businessman by the reporters. He responded by offering a plan for how to conceal the money, suggesting that it be routed through his consulting firm to a pair of 501(c)4 groups and then to a pro-Trump Ssuper PAC.The FBI is also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/01/nra-russia-investigations-gun-lobby" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">investigating</a> the National Rifle Association over allegations that the group, which is organized as a 501(c)4, may have received financial support from Russian sources. McClatchy <a href="https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article195231139.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">reported</a> that counterintelligence officials believe that Russian interests may have contributed to the NRA’s $30 million election advertising campaign in 2016.Foreign firms increasingly finance major American business associations. As The Intercept has previously <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/15/chinese-state-owned-chemical-firm-joins-dark-money-group-pouring-cash-into-u-s-elections/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">reported</a>, a major Chinese chemical company joined the American Chemistry Council, a 501(c)6 that routinely lobbies lawmakers and spends money in elections.The Trump administration had originally tried to remove the Schedule B form last summer in a surprise decision. A federal judge in Montana, however, ruled that the IRS had failed to follow proper regulatory procedure and ordered the agency to conduct a formal rule-making to allow the public and stakeholders to weigh in on the change.“The rise of ‘dark money’ in U.S. elections has made it easy for foreign entities to contravene these laws by funneling money into U.S. elections through groups that that [sic] do not publicly disclose their donors, such as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations,” <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6776200-CLC-Comments-IRS-Reg-102508-16.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">wrote</a> the Campaign Legal Center in a letter to the IRS. “This change would further enable foreign entities to donate millions of dollars to such organizations for the purpose of influencing U.S. elections without any risk of scrutiny by federal regulators.”Republican-aligned think tanks have joined the business-backed push to eliminate the Schedule B. Several nonprofits backed by billionaire Charles Koch, including his marquee group Americans for Prosperity, <a href="https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2020/02/speakers-list-for-todays-hearing-on-eliminating-schedule-b-identification-of-donors-for-non-charitab.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">testified</a> on February 7 in support of the rule change. FreedomWorks, a conservative grassroots group backed by business interests, has also mobilized hundreds of letters to the agency.Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member now with the Heritage Foundation, appeared at the hearing alongside other conservative activists in support of the rule change.Von Spakosvsky, an <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/02/27/hr1-bill-voting-rights-republicans/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">avowed critic</a> of campaign finance regulations and voting rights laws, testified that “their claim that this will somehow allow foreign money to suddenly flood into American elections is absurd,” according to a transcript of his remarks. Von Spakovsky said the FEC had plenty of authority and expertise in combating foreign money during his tenure, despite the fact that the agency has historically only intervened to investigate foreign money through disclosed political action committees on a few occasions in its 45-year history. He did not cite any examples of the FEC investigating 501(c) groups.</div></div><div></div>2020<div>=</div><div>...</div><div>The biggest recent change is Republicans' increasingly precarious hold on the Senate.<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(74, 74, 74); font-family: Gordita, Avenir, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><li class="StoryBodyitem--1cHYD" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Atiza, Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.75; margin-bottom: 1rem;">National Journal's Josh Kraushaar writes in <a href="https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/682314?unlock=1EAZFXDRKO5HMK81" class="StoryBodylink--10w8x" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: linear-gradient(rgb(0, 141, 200), rgb(0, 141, 200)) 0px 95% / 1px 1px repeat-x; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0.03em, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px -0.03em, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.06em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.06em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.12em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.12em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.15em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.15em 0px;">his "Against the Grain" column</a> that "the pathway for a narrow Democratic takeover of the upper chamber is looking clearer than ever": "If Trump doesn’t win a second term, Democrats only need to net three seats to win back the majority."</li></ul>Scott Reed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce senior political strategist, tells me that third-quarter fundraising reports showing <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-score/2019/10/17/senate-challengers-outraise-incumbents-780743" class="StoryBodylink--10w8x" style="background-image: linear-gradient(rgb(0, 141, 200), rgb(0, 141, 200)); background-position: 0px 95%; background-size: 1px 1px; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.03em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0.03em, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px -0.03em, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.06em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.06em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.09em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.12em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.12em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) 0.15em 0px, rgb(255, 255, 255) -0.15em 0px;">three Republican senators</a> being out-raised by Democratic challengers (in Arizona, Iowa and Maine) "are a three-alarm fire."<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(74, 74, 74); font-family: Gordita, Avenir, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><li class="StoryBodyitem--1cHYD" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Atiza, Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.75; margin-bottom: 1rem;">"The party was shaken by that," Reed said. "We're all worried."</li><li class="StoryBodyitem--1cHYD" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Atiza, Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.75; margin-bottom: 1rem;">The well-funded Chamber started TV ads in Arizona last week, launches an ad today in Maine, and will add a third state next week.</li><li class="StoryBodyitem--1cHYD" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Atiza, Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.75; margin-bottom: 1rem;">That's the earliest the group has ever gone on the air: Ads typically begin after Thanksgiving or New Year's.</li><li class="StoryBodyitem--1cHYD" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Atiza, Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.75; margin-bottom: 1rem;">"We have to spend early because the climate stinks," Reed said. "All these incumbent senators have terrible job approvals and terrible favorables."</li><li class="StoryBodyitem--1cHYD" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Atiza, Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.75; margin-bottom: 1rem;">But Reed thinks Trump has a better than 50-50 chance of hanging on: "He's still wildly popular in the middle of the country."...</li></ul></div><div></div>1219 win  <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/reuters-america-update-1-u-s-sec-proposes-rules-that-could-limit-shareholder-voices.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/reuters-america-update-1-u-s-sec-proposes-rules-that-could-limit-shareholder-voices.html</a> Nov 5 (Reuters) - Wall Street’s top regulator on Tuesday proposed a pair of long-awaited rules that would set new limits on shareholders ability to call for corporate changes on thorny issues like climate change disclosures and executive compensation In one of the biggest wins for the corporate lobby under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 along partisan lines to raise the re-submission thresholds for motions that shareholders file on company ballots and to put new requirements on firms guiding investors how to vote in corporate elections.Both shareholder proposals and proxy advisory firms are cornerstones of corporate governance and how investors hold management accountable.Both changes will be subject to public comment.Democrats Rob Jackson and Allison Herren Lee voted against the rules, saying they tilted the playing field toward corporate management.“In each aspect of todays two proposals, the odds are stacked against shareholders,” Lee said.<div id="MidResponsive-8" class="" data-module="mps-slot" style="font-size: small; box-sizing: border-box; position: sticky; margin: 0px auto;">The current thresholds for re-submissions of proposals date from 1954, SEC officials said. Under the new rule, proposals resubmitted to companies within five years must have won 5% support in the past, up from 3% under current guidelines, with other minimum thresholds increasing for the second and third times proposals are submitted, SEC officials said.The agency’s proposed rule aims to end shareholder proposals that appear on corporate ballots with diminishing levels of support, officials said.The SEC also proposed to require proxy advisory firms to give companies two chances to review their recommendations before they are sent to shareholders.Proxy advisory firms, including Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., recommend to investors how to vote and cast ballots on behalf of some asset managers.Tuesday’s proposal seeks to impose a “review and response process” by allowing companies five days to review proxy adviser proposals and provide feedback to the advisers, who would then have two days to notify companies when they will send their recommendations, SEC officials said.The process aims to “allow advisers and companies to better communicate about the aspects of the proxy advisory report that meets a standard of interest” on proposed issues, they said.Industry groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which lobbied aggressively for the proposals, praised the SEC’s moves.“The current opaque system of proxy advice degrades the information available to investors,” Tom Quaadman of the Chamber told Reuters.</div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/exxonmobil-is-still-bankrolling-climate-science-deniers/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/exxonmobil-is-still-bankrolling-climate-science-deniers/</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div>ExxonMobil is still bankrolling climate science deniers</div><div>
</div><div>Written by Elliott Negin / Independent Media Institute October 23, 2019</div><div>
</div><div>ExxonMobil says it believes “the risk of climate change is real,” and it is “committed to being part of the solution.” The largest investor-owned oil company in the world also says it supports a federal carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement.</div><div>
</div><div>Then why, after all these years, is the company still financing advocacy groups, think tanks, and business associations that reject the reality and seriousness of the climate crisis, as well as members of Congress who deny the science and oppose efforts to rein in carbon emissions?</div><div>
</div><div>According to the company’s latest grantmaking report, it gave $772,500 to 10 such groups in 2018, which does not include its annual dues to trade groups such as theAmerican Petroleum Institute, which opposes a carbon tax. In addition, ExxonMobil continued to promote gridlock directly on Capitol Hill. Two-thirds of the $1.65 million it spent on congressional election campaigns during the 2017-18 election cycle went to climate science deniers.</div><div>
</div><div>Nearly half of ExxonMobil’s 2018 donations to nonprofit denier groups went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Another 30 percent went to the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which have been ExxonMobil grantees for 20 years. All told, the company has spent some $37 million since 1998 on a network of denier organizations—a sorry record of support that ranks second only to Charles Koch and his brother, the late David Koch, owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries.</div><div>
</div><div>The shred of good news here is that ExxonMobil’s 2018 denier grant budget was half of what it spent in 2017 and the lowest amount since 2012. But if the company were truly serious about addressing climate change, it would cut off such funding completely. Likewise, it would support federal lawmakers who want to curb carbon emissions, not those standing in the way of government action.</div><div>
</div><div>So what did ExxonMobil get for its money in 2018?</div><div>
</div><div>Underwriting Climate Denial at the U.S. Chamber</div><div>
</div><div>In 2014, ExxonMobil pledged $5 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Capital Campaign over a five-year period on top of its annual dues, despite the lobby group’s history of misrepresenting climate science and the economics of transitioning to clean energy. Last year, the company kicked in $350,000 for the Capital Campaign and another $15,000 for the Chamber’s Corporate Citizenship Center, bringing its total 2018 donation to $365,000.</div><div>
</div><div>Two years ago, the Chamber sponsored a widely debunked report that wildly inflated the cost of adhering to the Paris climate agreement to the U.S. economy. President Trump used that report as his primary rationale for refusing to honor the U.S. commitment to the accord.</div><div>
</div><div>Earlier this year, however, the Chamber posted a new statement on its website that suggested that the business lobby is softening its position. “We stand with every American seeking a cleaner, stronger environment—for today and tomorrow,” the Chamber now asserts. “Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option.” The website also features the Chamber’s definition of an effective climate policy, which it says should include, among other things, “large-scale renewables, energy storage and batteries,” and should “encourage international cooperation.”</div><div>
</div><div>Does that mean the Chamber has finally come to its senses? Not quite. It opposed the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would have reduced coal power plant carbon emissions, and supports the Trump administration’s move to repeal it. And although a Chamber spokesman told Politico in August that it is “absolutely important for the U.S. to remain in the Paris climate agreement,” he added that the “Obama administration’s pledge was unrealistic [and] was going to have a negative impact on our economy. And so we’d like to see that revisited.” In other words, the Chamber would like the United States to remain a party to the agreement so that it can try to weaken the U.S. commitment to it.</div><div>
</div><div>Backing Denial at the American Enterprise Institute</div><div>
</div><div>The American Enterprise Institute, an 80-year-old, free market think tank in Washington, D.C., has received more money from ExxonMobil than any other climate science denier organization. In 2018, ExxonMobil gave the organization $160,000, bringing its total to $4.65 million since 1998.</div><div>
</div><div>Economist Benjamin Zycher, an Enterprise Institute staff member who writes regularly about climate issues, argues that a carbon tax would be “ineffective” and has called the Paris agreement an “absurdity.” He also routinely cites largely debunked papers by John Christy, Judith Curry and other outlier scientists to buttress his attacks on what he calls “climate alarmism.”</div><div>
</div><div>Last fall, for example, Zycher took aim at the second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment—a periodic, congressionally mandated analysis of peer-reviewed climate science by 13 federal agencies. The report warned that by the end of this century, unchecked climate change could cause tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. The Trump administration issued it the day after Thanksgiving in the hope that it would receive limited attention.</div><div>
</div><div>Zycher took issue with the report’s conclusions in a blog post on the think tank’s website, citing “systematic evidence on climate phenomena” that he says the report ignored. His “evidence” included half-truths, cherry-picked facts and fabrications. Contrary to Zycher’s claims, human activity is responsible for more than half of the increase in average global temperatures since 1950; sea level rise has accelerated due to climate change; and although there has been little change in the frequency of hurricanes globally, research suggests there has been an increase in hurricane intensity over the past 40 years.</div><div>
</div><div>Zycher also posted a column belittling a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood that charges ExxonMobil with defrauding investors by publicly claiming to incorporate climate risks in its business decisions while downplaying or ignoring them for internal planning purposes. The lawsuit, which went to trial on October 22, alleges that ExxonMobil inflated its value, falsely assuring investors that its oil and gas reserves would not become “stranded assets” that would have to be left in the ground. Zycher accused Underwood of “picking an unpopular target and then trying to find a way to convict it of something,” and suggested that she filed the suit to advance her career.</div><div>
</div><div>Financing the Manhattan Institute’s Specious Case Against Renewables</div><div>
</div><div>The Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based think tank, received $75,000 from ExxonMobil last year for its Center for Energy Policy. Since 1998, the company has given the Libertarian policy shop more than $1.3 million.</div><div>
</div><div>Like the Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute opposes the Paris climate accord. Senior Fellow Oren Cass, who regularly testified before Congress against Obama administration climate efforts, alleges the international agreement is “somewhere between a farce and a fraud.” The think tank is also an outspoken opponent of renewable energy, routinely calling for an end to federal subsidies for wind, solar and electric vehicles. At the same time, it is mum about the significantly bigger subsidies the oil and gas industry has been receiving over the last 100 years.</div><div>
</div><div>Cass’s colleague, Senior Fellow Robert Bryce, has been bashing wind power for years and, like President Trump, he wildly overstates its threat to birds. In fact, the top human-caused threats to birds are climate change, buildings, power lines, misapplied pesticides, communications towers, and oil and gas industry fluid waste pits. Bryce never mentions that. It would undermine his bogus argument.</div><div>
</div><div>Still another Manhattan Institute senior fellow, Mark P. Mills, wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in May titled “What if Green Energy Isn’t the Future?” In it, he maintained that, “using wind, solar and batteries as the primary sources of a nation’s energy supply remains far too expensive.” In fact, renewables are now the cheapest type of new electricity generation for more than two-thirds of the world, according to a June report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. By 2030, Bloomberg researchers project, wind and solar will “undercut existing coal and [natural] gas almost everywhere.” Mills also failed to factor in the cost of doing nothing to curb carbon pollution. The top 10 largest climate change-related disasters in 2018 alone cost at least $85 billion in damages.</div><div>
</div><div>Aiding and Abetting Congressional Gridlock</div><div>
</div><div>On top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars ExxonMobil gave to climate science denier groups last year, the company continued to fund deniers on Capitol Hill. As noted above, 67 percent of the $1.65 million it spent during the 2017-18 election cycle—roughly $1.1 million—went to the campaigns of 189 climate science deniers. It then spent $11.15 million in 2018 to lobby lawmakers, more than any other oil and gas company.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the most talked-about climate proposals in Congress today is a carbon tax, and despite ExxonMobil’s professed decade-long support for one, it has consistently funded senators and representatives who oppose the idea. Since 2013, there have been at least five nonbinding resolutions in Congress on such a tax. Each time, a majority of ExxonMobil-funded legislators, ranging from 75 percent to 93 percent, voted against it. The most recent example of the company’s upside-down funding priorities is the outcome of a July 2018 nonbinding resolution in the House stating such a tax would be “detrimental” to the U.S. economy. Once again, a majority of ExxonMobil-funded lawmakers favored the resolution, which passed by a 229-to-180 vote. This time, 78 percent of the 174 House members who had received ExxonMobil campaign contributions since 2013 voted for it.</div><div>
</div><div>ExxonMobil first announced its support for a carbon tax in 2009 in a cynical attempt to derail a cap-and-trade bill in Congress, and last year, the company announced it would give $1 million over two years to Americans for Carbon Dividends, a political action group created to promote a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The proposal—developed by the Climate Leadership Council, a coalition of corporations, environmental groups and former government officials—would levy a carbon fee starting at $40 a ton in exchange for dropping all “stationary source” (non-transportation) carbon pollution regulations and granting the fossil fuel industry immunity from climate lawsuits.</div><div>
</div><div>In a surprise move, however, the Climate Leadership Council and Americans for Carbon Dividends recently deleted the provision shielding the fossil fuel industry from liability, apparently abandoning coalition co-founders BP, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, which are facing more than a dozen lawsuits for billions of dollars in climate change-related damages. It remains to be seen what ExxonMobil will do now, but based on past experience, the company likely will continue to finance lawmakers who cite fraudulent reports by the groups it funds to make their bogus case that climate change is not a threat. In other words, ExxonMobil will keep bankrolling climate science denial to make sure nothing happens on Capitol Hill.</div><div>
</div><div>Author’s note: Besides the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($365,000), American Enterprise Institute ($160,000) and Manhattan Institute ($75,000), ExxonMobil gave grants in 2018 to the following seven climate science denier groups: American Council on Science and Health ($60,000), Center for American and International Law ($12,500), Federalist Society ($10,000), Hoover Institution ($15,000), Mountain States Legal Foundation ($5,000), National Black Chamber of Commerce ($30,000) and the Washington Legal Foundation ($40,000).</div><div>
</div><div>Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.</div><div>
</div><div>This article first appeared on Truthout and was produced in partnership with Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</div></div><div></div>two cabinet seats?!<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>despite promise/chant drain the swamp and some fig-leaf refrom on how long wait revolve door?</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-bc-us--trump-former-lobbyists-20190917-story.html">https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-bc-us--trump-former-lobbyists-20190917-story.html</a></div><div>
</div><div>In less than three years, President Donald Trump has named more former lobbyists to Cabinet-level posts than his most recent predecessors did in eight, putting a substantial amount of oversight in the hands of people with ties to the industries they're regulating.</div><div data-type="text" class="crd clln--it" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 19px;"><div class=" crd--cnt " style="box-sizing: border-box; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 28px; padding: 24px 24px 0px;">The Cabinet choices are another sign that Trump's populist pledge to "drain the swamp" is a catchy campaign slogan but not a serious attempt to change the way Washington works. Instead of staring down "the unholy alliance of lobbyists and donors and special interests" as Trump recently declared, the influence industry has flourished during his administration. The amount spent in 2019 on lobbying the U.S. government is on pace to match or exceed last year's total of $3.4 billion, the most since 2010, according to the political money website Open Secrets. Trump also has pulled in hefty contributions from industries with business before his administration, and his hotel near the White House has been a magnet for lobbyists and foreign interests since he was elected. "An administration staffed by former industry lobbyists will almost certainly favor industry over the general public, because that's the outlook they're bringing to the job," said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the political reform program at the think tank New America and author of the book "The Business of America is Lobbying." Former lobbyists run the Defense and Interior departments, Environmental Protection Agency and office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The acting Labor secretary, Pat Pizzella, is a former lobbyist and Trump's pick to run the department, Eugene Scalia , also is an ex-lobbyist. Scalia's confirmation hearing before a GOP -controlled Senate committee is scheduled for Thursday and Democrats are expected to grill him on his long record of opposing federal regulations . A seventh ex-lobbyist, Dan Coats , resigned as Trump's intelligence chief in August. President Barack Obama had five former lobbyists in his Cabinet during two terms in office and President George W. Bush had three, also during eight years in the White House, according to lobbying and foreign agent disclosure records. The review was limited to the Trump, Obama and Bush administrations because prior to 1995 there was no central database of federal lobbying registrations and the law was hazy about who was supposed to register. Shortly after taking office, Trump signed an executive order that revoked an Obama directive prohibiting lobbyists from being appointed to a post at a federal agency they'd lobbied within the last two years. While this "cooling off" period was cast aside, Trump's order continued to bar for two years lobbyists-turned-government-employees from participating in particular matters that they'd lobbied on during the two preceding years. "Without the cooling off period, these Cabinet heads appear to be serving their former employers' and clients' special interests," said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump's Cabinet includes the heads of the 15 executive departments and seven other senior-level posts, such as EPA administrator and director of national intelligence. Obama's Cabinet had the same number of members and Bush's Cabinet had two fewer. Scalia, the Labor Department nominee, has spent much of his career as a partner in the Washington office of the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher firm, where he ran up a string of victories in court cases on behalf of business interests challenging labor and financial regulations. Scalia, the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, served for a year as the Labor Department's top lawyer during the George W. Bush administration. His financial disclosure report lists 49 clients who paid him $5,000 or more for legal services, including e-cigarette giant Juul Labs, Facebook, Walmart and Bank of America. Disclosure records show Scalia was registered in 2010 and 2011 to lobby for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Pizzella has been the acting secretary since Alexander Acosta resigned the post in July amid renewed criticism of how, as a federal prosecutor, he handled a 2008 secret plea deal with wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Pizzella lobbied for clients that ranged from Microsoft Corp. to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. He also worked on several accounts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff , although Pizzella was never accused of any misconduct or wrongdoing. Obama chose Pizzella for a GOP seat on the Federal Labor Relations Authority and he was an assistant Labor secretary during the George W. Bush administration. Two Trump Cabinet officials, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, have been accused by congressional Democrats and public interest groups of failing to honor their ethics pledges. Both Bernhardt and Wheeler, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have played leading roles in the administration's rollback of environmental regulations. They also both worked at the agency they now lead during prior administrations. Interior's inspector general launched an investigation of Bernhardt earlier this year after receiving seven separate ethics allegations against him. A complaint filed by the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center alleged that shortly after joining the department in August 2017 Bernhardt became involved in matters that were the focus of his lobbying for California's Westlands Water District that lasted until mid-November 2016. Westlands has federal contracts to provide irrigation water to 700 family-owned farms in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. The complaint said Bernhardt had "lobbied on discrete provisions of a law directing Interior to maximize water supplies to his clients, and to minimize Endangered Species Act protections in that region." Then, after joining Interior, Bernhardt breached his ethics pledge by directing government officials under him "to advance the particular matters he had previously lobbied on," according to the complaint. "It is very hard to tell where Bernhardt's lobbying career ended and where his public service begins," said Brendan Fischer, director of the Campaign Legal Center's federal reform program. An Interior spokesman said in a statement, "Secretary Bernhardt is and always has been committed to upholding his ethical responsibilities, and he has fully complied with those obligations." Thomas Birmingham, Westlands' general manager, said the agency is actually disadvantaged with Bernhardt as secretary because he's not been able to engage with him as he did past Interior secretaries, like Ken Salazar and Sally Jewell . "I don't know what Mr. Bernhardt has done or has not done at Interior," Birmingham said. Wheeler worked as a lobbyist for eight years and his more than 20 different clients included coal magnate Bob Murray, who pushed hard on the Trump administration to grant a series of breaks for the sagging domestic coal industry. "I think he's doing a great job," Betsy Monseu, CEO of the American Coal Council, said of Wheeler. "We're pleased to see the regulatory reform agenda moving forward." But Canter's organization, known as CREW, urged the EPA inspector general earlier this year to investigate whether Wheeler broke his ethics pledge. Among the allegations, CREW said Wheeler had participated in the easing of standards for storing coal ash in 2018 even though he had lobbied on those regulations the year before for Murray Energy. The inspector general's office declined to say if it had open an investigation, directing a reporter to file a Freedom of Information Act request. An EPA statement called CREW's complaint "baseless and just flat out false." It said Wheeler works closely with career EPA ethics officials and abides by all ethics requirements. The Pentagon's top official, Mark Esper , spent seven years lobbying for defense industry juggernaut Raytheon, a company that stands to gain handsomely from Trump's push to boost military spending by billions of dollars. The company closed out 2018 by hitting a record $27.1 billion in net sales, up nearly seven percent from the $25.3 billion the year before. Esper, who was secretary of the Army when Trump chose him to be defense secretary, faced opposition from only a handful of Democrats and he was confirmed in July by a 90-8 margin. As Army secretary, Esper hasn't participated in Raytheon-related matters under the terms of an ethics agreement that runs through this November. After that, Esper told Pentagon ethics officials that he will continue to avoid Raytheon issues unless his participation as defense secretary is determined to be essential. Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative, lobbied primarily for steel companies between 1999 and 2003. Beginning in 2004, he represented just one company, U.S. Steel, which paid his firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, $3.2 million over a seven-year period.</div></div><div style="font-size: small;"></div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;">might not fund trump 2020?</div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/the-nra-is-in-total-meltdown-and-making-folks-nervous-about-trumps-2020-campaign-report/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/the-nra-is-in-total-meltdown-and-making-folks-nervous-about-trumps-2020-campaign-report/</a></div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"><div>no lnx</div><div>henderson</div><div>NRA ‘is in total meltdown’ — and making ‘folks nervous’ about Trump’s 2020 campaign: report</div><div> Michael Vadon</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>written by Alex Henderson July 3, 2019</div><div>
</div><div>It isn’t hard to figure out why President Donald Trump has been claiming that Democrats are hell-bent on destroying the 2nd Amendment: he realizes that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of the top supporters of the Republican Party. But the NRA’s recent problems have been well-documented, and a Politico report published on July 3 stresses that turmoil and instability within the NRA are a major worry for Trump’s 2020 campaign.</div><div>
</div><div>In Politico, journalist Alex Isenstadt explains that the NRA “is in total meltdown” thanks to “everything from a failed coup attempt to the departure of its longtime political architect to embarrassing tales of self-dealing by top leaders.” And GOP leaders, according to Isenstadt, fear that if the NRA is “profoundly diminished heading into the election,” the GOP will be facing “a gaping hole in its political machinery.”</div><div>
</div><div>Gregg Keller, former executive director of the American Conservative Union, explained to Politico why the NRA’s problems “have folks nervous” in the Republican Party — asserting, “No organization has been more important to conservative voter education and engagement than the NRA. We all hope they’re able to mount the kind of effort in the 2020 cycle they have in the past. But in case they can’t, given their current situation, I hope they’re being forthright about that within the movement so others can pick up the slack.”</div><div>
</div><div>Republican strategist Chris LaCivita told Politico that the “infighting and accusations” troubling the NRA will “have an impact in the NRA’s ability to raise money, which would be used in elections to turn out its membership.”</div><div>
</div><div>Isenstadt notes that following the recent resignation of Chris Cox (who had been in charge of NRA lobbying since 2002), it remains to be seen “who will oversee the NRA’s 2020 strategy.” Steven Law, who heads the Senate Leadership Fund (a right-wing political action committee with close ties to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), described Cox as “the guy everybody dealt with” in the GOP.</div><div>
</div><div>@realDonaldTrump</div><div> People are fleeing New York like never before. If they own a business, they are twice as likely to flee. And if they are a victim of harassment by the A.G. of the state, like what they are doing to our great NRA, which I think will move quickly to Texas, where they are loved.....</div><div>
</div><div>If the NRA’s problems harm Republican fundraising in 2020, the burning question is: who would fill the void? And Isenstadt points out that other possible worries for the Trump campaign include less spending by the Chamber of Commerce and a recent announcement by the Koch Brothers-affiliated Americans for Prosperity that it is open to the possibility of supporting centrist Democratic candidates in some cases.</div><div>
</div><div>Former Republican Rep. David McIntosh, now president of the right-wing Club for Growth, expressed concerns over Americans for Prosperity’s announcement of possible support for some Democrats.</div><div>
</div><div>Interviewed by Politico, McIntosh said of the GOP, “Right now, the party is functioning. But if you see another collapse or if we lose the White House, I think you’re going to see Republicans frankly in a world of hurt without a major funding group like that.”</div></div><div style="font-size: small;"></div><a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/05/07/chamber-of-commerce-climate-suits/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/05/07/chamber-of-commerce-climate-suits/</a>
 Dana DrugmandThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which historically has worked to block climate policy and undermine international action, has proposed sweeping new rules to help fossil fuel companies fend off liability lawsuits seeking to hold them accountable for costly climate impacts.  The Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform <a href="https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/resource/new-us-chamber-studies-examine-surge-in-lawsuits-by-cities-and-counties" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">released a pair of reports in March</a> that sharply criticize public nuisance and municipal lawsuits against large corporations including fossil fuel producers. One of the reports contains a list of “solutions” that include barring local governments from bringing liability suits, restricting which industries can be targeted in suits and restricting state courts’ authority to hear certain claims or their ability to order certain remedies. <a href="https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/research/mitigating-municipality-litigation-scope-and-solutions" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">That report</a> was written by three former state attorneys with long histories of defending fossil fuel interests. “The Chamber’s real concern with municipal climate litigation is to protect its polluter funders from having to cough up the real documents and truthful testimony required by court proceedings,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who previously served as Rhode Island’s attorney general, told Climate Liability News. “Municipalities are independent corporate entities that have every right to sue in their own names. Municipal litigation in no way prevents states from pursuing legal action, nor does it usurp state authority.” The Chamber’s argument is that the fossil fuel industry should be insulated from litigation because climate change is a political issue best handled by the legislative and executive branches of government. Fossil fuel companies have already used that argument to convince two federal judges to dismiss suits against them by the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and New York, although those dismissals are being appealed.  Patrick Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School, said the Chamber’s proposals are little more than a red herring as public nuisance cases do not threaten the authority of the other branches of government. “Indeed, municipalities have been forced to turn to the courts for relief due to the failure of the other branches to take decisive corrective action and in the case of the Trump administration, to take actions designed to propel the country off the climate cliff,” Parenteau said. “Courts are understandably cautious about not overstepping their authorities but they are also constitutionally bound to adjudicate the rights and responsibilities of the parties that come before them. “In our system of justice, it is up to a jury to decide questions of causation, damage, and liability,” he added. “Of course that is the last thing that the oil companies or the Chamber of Commerce want to see happen, and why they are so intent on throwing these cases out of court or shielding them from liability.” According to Catherine M. Sharkey, a New York University law professor and an expert in torts, products liability and administrative law, the claims in these climate suits are nothing extraordinary. In her <a href="https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/The-City-of-New-York-v-BP-P-L-C/AMICUS-BRIEF-on-behalf-of-Catherine-M-Sharkey-FILED-Service-date-11-15-2018-by-CM-ECF-2435089-18-2188-Edited-11-20-2018-by-BM-Entered-11-15-2018-04-18-PM/ca2-2018-02188-00206521154" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">amicus brief</a> supporting New York City in its appeal, she <a href="https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/The-City-of-New-York-v-BP-P-L-C/AMICUS-BRIEF-on-behalf-of-Catherine-M-Sharkey-FILED-Service-date-11-15-2018-by-CM-ECF-2435089-18-2188-Edited-11-20-2018-by-BM-Entered-11-15-2018-04-18-PM/ca2-2018-02188-00206521154" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">wrote</a>, “nuisance liability plays a potentially positive and economically justified role in forcing actors to internalize the harms that their activities cause.” The Chamber has written <a href="https://www.chamberlitigation.com/energy-environment" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">friend-of-the-court briefs</a> supporting the companies in that litigation. The pair of reports released in March attempt to extend those arguments to forestall future suits. One report, titled <a href="https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/research/waking-the-litigation-monster-the-misuse-of-public-nuisance" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">“Waking the Litigation Monster: The Misuse of Public Nuisance,”</a> reviews the history of public nuisance as a tort, arguing that it was improperly expanded beyond its narrow origin to address hazards resulting from industrial activities like chemical dumping and asbestos use and the sale of dangerous products such as tobacco and lead paint.  The report claims that “public nuisance is not needed to fill gaps” that the political branches already occupy. But as <a href="http://www.progressivereform.org/sokolkarenbio.cfm" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Karen Sokol</a>, associate professor of law at Loyola University College of Law in New Orleans, <a href="http://www.progressivereform.org/survivingthriving_common_law.cfm" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">wrote in an op-ed</a> for the Center for Progressive reform, the courts do have a role because the political branches have failed to address the climate crisis.  “State tort law is urgently needed to address the myriad climate change harms exacerbated by the federal government’s inaction,” she wrote. “This is the gap-filling role that state tort law has been serving for this country’s citizens for decades.”     The other report, <a href="https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/research/mitigating-municipality-litigation-scope-and-solutions" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">“Mitigating Municipality Litigation: Scope and Solutions,”</a>  proposes ways to prevent more of these suits from being filed.  “The feeding frenzy of municipal lawsuits not only stands in the way of justice by making it harder to resolve cases, but also undermines states’ authority,” Harold Kim, chief operating officer of the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, said in a <a href="https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/resource/new-us-chamber-studies-examine-surge-in-lawsuits-by-cities-and-counties" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">press release</a>.The Chamber’s report outlines strategies for states to quash municipal lawsuits, including:<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; list-style: none; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Eliminate the power of local governments to bring suits altogether, or substantially limit it by requiring state approval of municipal suits. Another possibility is to prohibit the hiring of outside counsel by municipalities.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;"> Limit the defendants that can be sued; in other words, provide immunity for certain industries or companies.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;"> Limit what constitutes a public nuisance.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;"> Deprive municipal plaintiffs a forum to sue by restricting state courts’ authority to hear certain claims or their ability to order certain remedies.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></ul>Parenteau called these recommendations “preposterous” and said the reports serve as “just more right wing arm-waving to divert attention from the very real environmental and economic damage that climate change is doing to communities all across the country.”  “Innocent people don’t need immunity,” he said.<h4 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 28px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; clear: both; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Who is Behind The Reports?  </h4>To produce the report outlining ways to stop municipal suits, the Chamber turned to a roster of players with a history of defending fossil fuel companies and promoting industry interests. They  include former Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, former Maine Attorney General Drew Ketterer, and former West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin.   McKenna, who served two terms as AG from 2005-13, now works with the firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, where he co-chairs its public policy group and represents corporate clients such as Microsoft and Chevron. He is listed as an attorney for Chevron in the King County, Wash., <a href="https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/King-County-v-Chevron-Corporation-et-al/wawd-2:2018-cv-00758" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">climate suit against several oil companies</a>, and last year <a href="https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/17/34038880/former-attorney-general-backs-anti-carbon-fee-forgets-to-mention-he-represents-chevron" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">appeared in ads</a> opposing Washington’s carbon fee ballot initiative.  Ketterer was the attorney general of Maine from 1995-2001 and is a founding partner of Ketterer & Ketterer law firm. According to the firm’s <a href="http://www.kettererlaw.com/about-us/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">website</a>, the firm “represents national and multi-national corporations that are regulated or sued by state Attorneys General in all 50 states. The law firm formerly or currently represents for-profit colleges, the firearms industry, pharmaceutical companies, automobile manufacturers and petroleum companies.” Ketterer also wrote an <a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/20/commentary-lawsuits-will-not-solve-the-problem-of-climate-change/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">op-ed for a Maine newspaper</a> last year opposing climate liability suits.  Lin was Solicitor General in West Virginia from 2013-17, when he led West Virginia’s <a href="https://www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/get-an-insider-s-view-on-the-clean-power-plan-case.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">legal challenge</a> (along with other states) to the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. He is currently at a law firm based in Richmond, Va. The “Waking the Litigation Monster” report was prepared by Joshua K. Payne and Jess R. Nix, attorneys with the Alabama-based law firm Spotswood Samson & Sansbury. The <a href="https://www.spotswoodllc.com/practice.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">firm specializes</a> in representing large corporate clients such as energy companies and financial firms.  The Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) touts itself as “the most influential legal reform organization in the country.” Founded in 1998, its purpose is to mitigate liability risks to businesses. ILR advocates for legal reforms through research, communications campaigns and aggressive lobbying. The organization, which does not disclose its funders, spent an average of $25.44 million annually on lobbying between 2015-18, according to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000022405&year=a" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">data from OpenSecrets</a>. According to <a href="https://chamberofcommercewatch.org/challengingthechamber/civil-justice/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Chamber Watch</a>, a watchdog site run by the organization Public Citizen, the “ILR’s primary mission is to lobby to make it harder to for consumers, workers, and small businesses to go to court to hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing.”The Chamber’s History of Opposing Climate Action  The Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million corporations but does not disclose its members, has a long history of fighting against consumer and environmental protections and regulations. The Chamber was a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5674022-1989-GcC-Membership.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">founding member</a> of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry front group that <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-gcc-un-climate-change-ipcc/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">actively worked to undermine</a>climate science and to influence the UN’s climate negotiations. The Global Climate Coalition disbanded in 2002, but the Chamber continued to circulate <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/here-is-exactly-what-the-chamber-of-commerce-thinks-about-global-warming/447177/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">climate denial talking points</a> and lobby against climate policies. The Chamber successfully opposed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in 2008, and more recently has challenged the Clean Power Plan in court and funded a study <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/chamber-inflates-costs-ignores-benefits-climate-action" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">vastly overstating</a> the potential costs of the Paris Agreement, which President Trump cited in justifying his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the global climate accord. That study was debunked by numerous climate experts. Just as Big Oil has toned down its outright denial of climate change, the Chamber has also <a href="https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-04-24/the-us-chamber-of-commerces-new-take-on-climate-change/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">shifted</a> its public stance. The Chamber’s <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/addressing-climate-change" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">website</a> acknowledges that humans contribute to climate change and that “inaction is not an option.” However, the Chamber continues to lobby against climate legislation while arguing that courts should leave the issue to those branches. “The Chamber has consistently used deception, campaign spending, and bullying to fight any serious climate policy in the political branches,” said David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen’s climate program. “It’s beyond disingenuous to argue that the political branches should solve a problem when you’re fighting hard to make sure they don’t.”  Whitehouse called out the Chamber’s behavior in an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-files-brief-in-landmark-california-public-nuisance-case-against-oil-companies" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">amicus brief</a> supporting a set of California cities and counties suing fossil fuel producers. The suits are currently under appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  “The fossil fuel industry and its ally the U.S. Chamber have used political pressures to block executive and legislative action on climate change. They then turn around and argue in court that climate change is an issue to be addressed by the political branches of government they have blocked,” he said. “In fact, it’s the job of courts and juries to provide a forum where the politically mighty stand as equals with those they have harmed. It’s no surprise that the Chamber as the agent of the polluters would prefer the forum they have rigged.” Whitehouse’s brief concludes with the request that the court recognize the Chamber’s arguments as “rent-seeking, self-interested pleas to complete inaction.”  =beat!= const local regs maine
<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28082018/tar-sands-pipeline-court-ruling-south-portland-ban-public-health-constitutional-big-oil-maine">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28082018/tar-sands-pipeline-court-ruling-south-portland-ban-public-health-constitutional-big-oil-maine</a>
A federal judge has ruled that the coastal city of South Portland, Maine, did not violate the U.S. Constitution when it passed an ordinance that blocked a local pipeline company from bringing tar sands oil through its port.<div class="content" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded" style="box-sizing: inherit;">For the city of 25,000, the ruling was a surprise victory after years of fighting what <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112017/oil-pipeline-tar-sands-banned-south-portland-maine-industry-lawsuit-home-rule" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">felt like an impossible battle</a> against some of the world's biggest oil companies, which lined up to support the Portland Pipe Line Corporation (PPLC).Provided the ruling survives an appeal, it slams the door on a significant plan to ship Canadian tar sands oil, one of the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, to the East Coast for export to international markets, and it could offer a guide for other communities hoping to block energy projects."For other communities looking at opposing fossil fuel infrastructure, this case is a blueprint for how you should do it," said Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law professor at the Vermont Law School. "It's a strong opinion, and it could result in a really significant precedent for local control on petroleum-based industries."  The pipeline company's plan involved a 70-year-old pipeline system that currently carries conventional crude oil in the opposite direction, from a tanker facility in South Portland to refineries in Montreal. After Canada's tar sands oil boom crippled the market for oil travelling from Maine to Montreal, PPLC saw its business dwindle.A plan to reverse the flow and provide a route for tar sands oil to reach global markets through the port at South Portland represented a golden egg for the company—a way to redefine its business model, provide jobs and become a linchpin for oil exports.But it also would have come at a steep price, the grassroots group Protect South Portland argued.The plan called for the construction of a pair of 70-foot-high smokestacks next to a beloved waterfront park to burn off volatile compounds from the tar sands oil before it could be loaded into tankers. Concerns about emissions from those smokestacks led to the creation of the so-called Clear Skies Ordinance, which banned the bulk loading of crude oil onto tankers.When the City Council passed the ordinance in 2014, it sought to protect South Portland citizens from air pollution. The ordinance's foundation lay in Maine's "home rule authority," a stipulation of the state Constitution that allows municipalities to create regulations that go beyond state rules to protect public health and welfare.<div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto;"><figure id="file-271228" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-png" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">[map]</figure></div>The pipeline company filed its lawsuit in 2015, and a lengthy, expensive legal battle ensued. <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05012018/south-portland-maine-oil-sands-pipeline-local-control-environmentalists" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Late last year</a>, a federal district court judge threw out all but one of the industry's claims against the city, but left open the key question of whether the ordinance violated the Constitution.In his 92-page decision issued on Friday, Judge John A Woodcock, Jr., found it did not.The decision "gives communities a powerful tool," said Ken Rumelt, a Vermont Law School professor who led students at its environmental law clinic in advising groups involved in the case. "It says that a community, assuming there is no state law preempting what they're trying to do, can say no, we don't want to suffer these impacts."<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.333;">A Tale of Two Portlands</h3>The Maine decision echoes one issued earlier this month in the other Portland—Oregon.There, a group of industry and business groups had sued over a 2016 ordinance that banned the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure. As in Maine, the petitioners argued that the ordinance violated the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Commerce Clause</a> of the Constitution, which regulates commerce with foreign nations, among states and with Native American tribes.After years of volleying through the courts, the Oregon Supreme Court <a href="https://portlandtribune.com/sl/402320-298953-court-decision-means-portland-can-sharply-restrict-fossil-fuel-terminal-expansion-" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">opted not to hear a challenge</a> to the ordinance."The two Portlands are setting the stage for lots of other communities in between the two coasts," said Sean Mahoney of the Conservation Law Foundation, who has advised South Portland. "The lesson is that communities have the right and the obligation to protect the public health of the people who live in them, whether that is from air pollution or water pollution or lead in drinking water or housing."<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;">As Goes Maine?</h3>In the Maine case, the local pipeline company enlisted powerful allies as it opposed the ordinance. The American Petroleum Institute, whose members include most major oil and gas companies, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a 2013 ballot measure that would have blocked the project. After the ordinance was passed, API and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce both supported PPLC in its lawsuit.Josh Axelrod, a policy analyst with Natural Resources Defense Council, said that support laid bare just how much the industry wanted to use the PPLC pipelines to gain access to the East Coast for exporting tar sands. "This is a huge win to stop that from happening," he said.One by one, viable options to export the tar sands via pipeline have run into challenges. TransCanada <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05102017/transcanada-tar-sands-oil-pipeline-canada-energy-east-climate-emissions" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">abandoned its plans</a> for the Energy East Pipeline in 2017, announcing it was uneconomical. Earlier this month, a federal judge ordered a <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16082018/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-map-new-route-environmental-impact-statement-nepa-transcanada-tar-sands" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">new environmental review</a> of the Keystone XL project. And later this week, a Canadian court <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/4408816/federal-court-of-appeal-trans-mountain-pipeline-august/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">will rule </a>on whether First Nations groups were adequately consulted in the plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline—a decision that could delay or cancel the plans for that pipeline.These challenges "put some upper limit on where the industry would like to go," Axelrod said. "Back almost 10 years ago, they would talk about growing to 9 million barrels of oil per day of [tar sands] production. Their most optimistic projections now are less than 4.5 million barrels of oil per day."And that's premised on the construction of at least two new pipelines, Axelrod said—a prospect that's seeming less likely given the opposition and court rulings.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;">'Committed Citizens Can Change the World'</h3>The South Portland case will most likely be appealed. But for now, the decision is being met with surprise, and relief.Mayor Linda Cohen praised the ruling in a written statement, saying, "Faced with the prospect of hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil being loaded onto marine tank vessels in the City and threatening the health of the residents and preventing redevelopment of the waterfront, the City Council prohibited this new activity. We are pleased that the Court upheld the ordinance."Rachel Burger, the co-founder and president of Protect South Portland, said she was overjoyed. "I didn't count on this happening, necessarily. I thought the ruling was more likely to be negative," she said. "I'm just amazed that a group of people can do something like this."Thinking back on years of canvassing, fundraisers, marches and grassroots organizing, Burger said she keeps coming back to a Margaret Mead quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."</div></div></div></div><div class="tagged-with" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1em;"><label style="box-sizing: inherit; display: block; line-height: 1.2;">PUBLISHED UNDER:</label><div class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/oiltar-sands" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">OIL/TAR SANDS</a></div> <div class="field-item odd" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/regulation" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">REGULATION</a></div> <div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/activism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">ACTIVISM</a></div></div></div></div>=TOOL:   <a href="https://www.exposedbycmd.org/chambers-of-commerce/">https://www.exposedbycmd.org/chambers-of-commerce/</a><div>=</div><div>surprising defection: greenwash?<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bhp-climate-change-2518910663.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/bhp-climate-change-2518910663.html</a>
<div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px;"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;">World's Largest Mining Company Breaks With Global Trade Groups That Deny Climate Change</h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px;"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2518910663" data-authors="Climate Nexus" data-headline="World's Largest Mining Company Breaks With Global Trade Groups That Deny Climate Change" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description">One of the world's largest <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal</a> companies is making plans to quit the World Coal Association over a disagreement on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate</a> policies.British-Australian mining giant BHP Billiton noted in a <a href="https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/ourapproach/operatingwithintegrity/industryassociations/171219_bhpindustryassociationreview.pdf?la=en" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">review</a> of the company's industry associations issued Tuesday that it may end its membership in the international lobbying group and will reconsider its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce due in part to the U.S. planned withdrawal from the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Paris agreement</a>.BHP's review comes on the heels of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/19/bhp-agrees-to-rethink-its-links-to-minerals-council-of-australia" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">mounting shareholder pressure</a> to reconsider its memberships with groups that espouse views contrary to the company's stated values. The report affirmed that BHP believes "the warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable" and reasserted the company's support for the Paris agreement.As reported by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/business/energy-environment/australia-mining-company-climate-change.html?r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">New York Times</a>:The move highlights the delicate considerations huge mining companies must contend with as they seek to balance profit with social and environmental awareness.It represents the latest example of a business that is largely built around traditional fossil fuels responding to investor and government concern over climate change. Last week, the oil and gas giant BP <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/business/energy-environment/bp-lightsource-solar.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">said it would spend $200 million</a> to acquire a large stake in a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar" style="text-decoration-line: none;">solar</a> power developer, while Norway's Statoil and France's Total have also made investments in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">renewables</a>.Though carefully worded, B.H.P.'s report also takes issue with the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Trump</a> administration's unilateral exit from the Paris agreement."While we won't always agree with our industry associations, we will continue to call out material differences where they exist and we will take action where necessary, as we have done today," Geoff Healy, the company's chief external affairs officer, said in a statement.For a deeper dive:<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/business/energy-environment/australia-mining-company-climate-change.html?r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">New York Times</a>, <a href="https://in.reuters.com/article/us-bhp-coal-climatechange/bhp-says-likely-to-quit-global-coal-lobby-group-idINKBN1ED073" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Reuters</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/19/bhp-could-end-2m-membership-of-minerals-council-over-policy-differences" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Guardian</a>, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/6e17e770-e46d-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">FT</a>, <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/bhp-to-exit-coal-alliance-over-climate-change-policy/a-41853899" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Deutsche Welle</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-for-coal-just-got-even-chillier-1513678383?mg=prod/accounts-wsj" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">WSJ</a>, <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/12/19/bhp-billiton-threatens-to-leave-world-coal-association-over-climate-policy.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Fox Business</a>For more <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate change</a> and <a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">clean energy</a> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Facebook</a>, and sign up for daily <a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Hot News</a>.<div class="around-the-web"><div class="around-the-webheadline" style="font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase;">RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</div><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.bhp.com/environment/climate-change" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px;">BHP Billiton | Climate change ›</a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-emissions-2456647136.html" class="around-the-web__link" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px;">These 100 Companies Are to Blame for 71% of Greenhouse Gas ... ›</a></li></ul></div></div></div><div></div></div></div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.corporateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Executive-Summary_EN_webversionFINAL.pdf">https://www.corporateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Executive-Summary_EN_webversionFINAL.pdf</a></div><div>...</div><div><div>Industry groups stalk the halls of the UNFCCC</div><div>
</div><div>In this section, Corporate Accountability discusses</div><div>one of the most egregious ways big polluting</div><div>industries undermine climate policy: by walking the</div><div>halls as “observers” to the UNFCCC negotiations.</div><div>Currently, groups like the U.S. Chamber of</div><div>Commerce, Business Europe, and the Business</div><div>Council of Australia, which have all undermined</div><div>climate action on behalf of their corporate</div><div>members, have unfettered access to the climate</div><div>talks. Such access allows for not only direct</div><div>lobbying of delegates, but also for unparalleled</div><div>information gathering, as well as the greenwashing</div><div>of corporate images. To address the myriad ways</div><div>the presence of trade associations undermines</div><div>the talks and to strengthen the implementation of</div><div>the Paris Agreement, the authors resolve for the</div><div>UNFCCC to adopt a standard definition of conflict</div><div>of interest and implement a binding conflict of</div><div>interest policy to help reveal and limit undue</div><div>corporate influence via observer participation.</div><div>Carbon majors masquerading as part of the</div><div>tech solution</div><div>
</div><div>Environmentally sound technologies, such as</div><div>renewable energy and local innovations, will play</div><div>an essential role in mitigating and adapting to</div><div>climate change. While there is a mechanism in</div><div>the UNFCCC to accelerate development, transfer,</div><div>and deployment of climate technologies to Global</div><div>South countries, this mechanism has been coopted</div><div>by Big Polluters, from Électricité de France</div><div>and Shell to the World Coal Association. As Neth</div><div>Daño of the ETC Group explains, this cooptation</div><div>prevents the Technology Mechanism from</div><div>providing sound information and technical advice.</div><div>Instead it allows polluting corporations to project</div><div>an image of being part of the solution while at the</div><div>same time continuing to operate businesses that</div><div>are primarily responsible for the climate crisis. The</div><div>UNFCCC should not allow industry involvement</div><div>to compromise this transfer. Instead, as Daño</div><div>recommends, the Secretariat should fully evaluate</div><div>the environmental, social, and economic impacts</div><div>of climate technologies and ensure that the nonState</div><div>actors invited to take part in technology</div><div>development, transfer, and deployment do not</div><div>introduce potential conflicts of interest.</div></div><div>
</div><div><div>Article 6 and the invisible hand of carbon chaos</div><div>
</div><div>Markets are often portrayed as a magical solution</div><div>to environmental pollution. Yet study after study</div><div>reveals that carbon markets not only fail to reduce</div><div>emissions but create new problems as well.</div><div>Article 6, which may provide incentives to set</div><div>up and expand carbon markets, could very well</div><div>make matters worse—providing opportunities for</div><div>Big Polluters to continue to pollute egregiously</div><div>without consequence and distracting attention</div><div>from real solutions. Not surprisingly, trade groups</div><div>and corporations have promoted these markets</div><div>and affiliated individuals have even found a place</div><div>at the negotiating table. This is unacceptable.</div><div>In this section, Corporate Accountability calls for</div><div>governments to create binding regulations that</div><div>require polluting corporations to drastically reduce</div><div>emissions and reject carbon markets.</div><div>The corrupting influence of corporations’</div><div>COP sponsorships</div><div>
</div><div>For almost as long as the UNFCCC has existed, the</div><div>very same transnational corporations whose profits</div><div>depend on the burning of oil, coal, and gas have</div><div>been permitted to bankroll the U.N. climate talks.</div><div>In this section, Corporate Europe Observatory’s</div><div>Pascoe Sabido makes the case for eliminating the</div><div>corporate sponsorship of international climate</div><div>negotiations. As Sabido outlines, transnational</div><div>corporations use the access to the UNFCCC that</div><div>sponsorship buys them to undermine progress</div><div>and push false solutions (like failed carbon</div><div>trading or carbon capture and storage schemes).</div><div>While addressing sponsorship alone will not fully</div><div>eliminate corporate influence at the COPs, it</div><div>would chip away at the green and blue façades</div><div>Big Polluters have erected. It would also provide</div><div>space for an honest conversation on what role</div><div>Big Polluters should have in solving a crisis that</div><div>they continue to profit from. Sabido concludes</div><div>with a call for a policy to reject sponsorship from</div><div>corporations whose interests are in conflict with</div><div>the objectives of the UNFCCC and for COPs to</div><div>instead be financed equitably by member states.</div><div>
</div><div>Fighting corporate interests in the</div><div>Green Climate Fund</div><div>As Lidy Nacpil of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on</div><div>Debt and Development discusses in this section...</div></div><div>
</div><div></div>=eric schniederman nuke option IRS // chamber watch: AIG CoC starr fdn big effort: tort reform<h1 class="gb-volume-title" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px;">The Influence Machine: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Corporate ...</h1>By Alyssa Katz<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=XhadBAAAQBAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=XhadBAAAQBAJ</a>
When Americans hear the words “Chamber of Commerce,” many still think of the local business associations that spruce up Main Streets and sponsor Little League teams around the country. But the United States Chamber of Commerce is a different animal altogether. The Chamber was originally founded to give big business a voice during the long—and now almost inconceivable—period in American history that saw the rise of workers’ rights, consumer protections, and environmental awareness as national priorities. But over time, driven by an antigovernment ideology and its desire for financial and political power, the Chamber metastasized into a fighting force designed to protect the worst excesses of American industry.
 
The Chamber, through its veiled corporate sponsors, can take credit for some of the most disturbing trends in American life: the reversal of environmental protections, the destruction of unions and worker protections, the rise of virulent antigovernment ideology, the enlarged role of money in campaigns, and the creation of “astroturf” movements as cover for a corporate agenda. Through its propaganda, lobbying, and campaign cash, the Chamber has created a right-wing monster that even it struggles to control, a conservative movement that is destabilizing American democracy as never before.
 
The Influence Machine tells this history as a series of gripping narratives that take us into the backrooms of Washington, where the battles over how our country is run and regulated are fought, and then out into the world, where we see how the Chamber’s campaigns play out in real lives. In the end, Alyssa Katz reveals the hidden weaknesses of this seeming juggernaut and shows how its antidemocratic agenda can be reversed.ANThe time has come for these purportedly pro-climate companies to put up or shut up. If they care about the climate, then they must stop funding the anti-climate Chamber and its bogus studies. This is not a radical step to take. Many blue-chip companies have already left the Chamber – some publicly, like Apple, CVS and Pacific Gas & Electric, and others <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/24/disney-the-gap-and-pepsi-urged-to-quit-us-chamber-of-commerce?CMP%3Dshare_btn_tw&source=gmail&ust=1497042118621000&usg=AFQjCNFYIcO1I0B9mGTHIOyIuvqijYKHuA" href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/24/disney-the-gap-and-pepsi-urged-to-quit-us-chamber-of-commerce?CMP=share_btn_tw" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">privately</a>, such as Costco, eBay, Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft Heinz, Mars, Mattel, Mondelēz, Nestlé, Starbucks, Unilever and Walgreens Boots Alliance. Many of these companies quit the Chamber because of the Chamber’s anti-climate work.ANLast week, we were treated to a chorus of business voices disavowing President Trump’s decision to withdraw from 2015’s landmark Paris climate accord. While it’s nice to see business leaders voice support for action on climate change, it’s difficult to take their lamentations seriously when many of them are funding the very group that paid for a now-<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/chamber-inflates-costs-ignores-benefits-climate-action&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNHvC57IbJbGNXtPGSAGD1hwvYcc1A" href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/chamber-inflates-costs-ignores-benefits-climate-action" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">debunked</a> study used by President Donald Trump as justification for quitting the Paris Agreement.That group? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business lobby and a <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/obama-unveils-plan-to-sharply-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNHogggDYZzjVV1-nOma3KusxALV_A" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/obama-unveils-plan-to-sharply-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">leading opponent</a> of action on climate change. The Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy was one of two sponsors of the bogus<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNEXas-1dxu4_RF_A1gr6xXDcx6Idw" href="http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> study</a>that Trump cited in his reasoning for exiting the accord. The study, which uses a severely flawed methodology, features wildly inflated numbers and ignores the vast potential of energy efficiency, is completely devoid of credibility. Not only did the Chamber fund this report as a way to give opponents of the Paris Agreement a rationale for withdrawing, but it is also one of the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan and has consistently opposed action on climate change.So which “pro-climate” companies are funding the Chamber? Let’s start with Disney, whose CEO Robert Iger<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://twitter.com/RobertIger/status/870413002893254656&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNG5h0EFQgWD3npoPZ79YgX1wzF_tQ" href="https://twitter.com/RobertIger/status/870413002893254656" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">announced</a> that he was quitting Trump’s advisory council as a result of the president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.Then there’s Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103765754210171&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNGTrdtCOEbHX5crQTqnlLjY3S6fcg" href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103765754210171" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">wrote</a>, “Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and it puts our children's future at risk. […] Stopping climate change is something we can only do as a global community, and we have to act together before it's too late.”And Google, whose CEO <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/870386661321986048&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNGkamOHHehgDpSmLbfF8bkxZ9KjMg" href="https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/870386661321986048" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">tweeted</a>, “Disappointed with today’s decision. Google will keep working hard for a cleaner, more prosperous future for all.”Then there are the coalitions of companies that waged high-profile advocacy campaigns in favor of the Paris Agreement in the pages of The <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://twitter.com/USChamberWatch/status/870324782759333888&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNGFGug_UXfT7XWxg9jA1TJBh1LgeQ" href="https://twitter.com/USChamberWatch/status/870324782759333888" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">New York Times</a> and The <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://twitter.com/USChamberWatch/status/862677075953668096&source=gmail&ust=1497042118620000&usg=AFQjCNEDSS2I3E_hS5VtPs5ycM6lPN1zKw" href="https://twitter.com/USChamberWatch/status/862677075953668096" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Wall Street Journal</a>.Twelve of the 30 companies that paid for the ads in the Journal publicly disclose that they fund the Chamber. They are 3M, Bank of America, Campbell Soup, Citigroup, Coca Cola, Cummins, Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Procter & Gamble and Salesforce. The aforementioned Disney has also confirmed its Chamber membership to Public Citizen.Eight of the 25 companies that paid for ads in the Times publicly disclose that they fund the Chamber. In addition toFacebook and Alphabet (Google), they are Gap, The Hartford, Intel, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley and Salesforce.The time has come for these purportedly pro-climate companies to put up or shut up. If they care about the climate, then they must stop funding the anti-climate Chamber and its bogus studies. This is not a radical step to take. Many blue-chip companies have already left the Chamber – some publicly, like Apple, CVS and Pacific Gas & Electric, and others <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/24/disney-the-gap-and-pepsi-urged-to-quit-us-chamber-of-commerce?CMP%3Dshare_btn_tw&source=gmail&ust=1497042118621000&usg=AFQjCNFYIcO1I0B9mGTHIOyIuvqijYKHuA" href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/24/disney-the-gap-and-pepsi-urged-to-quit-us-chamber-of-commerce?CMP=share_btn_tw" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">privately</a>, such as Costco, eBay, Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft Heinz, Mars, Mattel, Mondelēz, Nestlé, Starbucks, Unilever and Walgreens Boots Alliance. Many of these companies quit the Chamber because of the Chamber’s anti-climate work.With the planet at stake, the public will no longer be fooled by these companies’ pro-climate public relations campaigns. If they are serious about climate change, then they will stop funding a group that has done so much to block progress towards preserving a livable planet. <div wibbitz="embed-main-player"><div class="bio-new body_environment" style="width: 630px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top: 3px solid rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both;"><div class="author-bio">Dan Dudis is Director of Public Citizen’s Chamber Watch program.</div></div><a href="https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/sites/default/files/resources/insidejobcai.pdf">https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/sites/default/files/resources/insidejobcai.pdf</a>downloaded...The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents 3 million American businesses, making it the largest business organization in the world.48 The Chamber is funded by major corporate polluters and is currently receiving millions of dollars from Exxon Mobil. Even when directly asked, its executives have not admitted that human activity is the cause of climate change. The Chamber has criticized both the targets set out in the Paris Agreement as well as the measures proposed to meet them, and yet it is still granted a seat at the table at the UNFCCC. Further, it does nothing to promote the cutting of emissions and has aggressively sought to stop domestic climate policies in their tracks. Links to the fossil fuel industry In 2015 Exxon Mobil gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation US$1,000,000 for “public information and policy research,” pledging a total of US$5,000,000 between 2014-2018.49 It has also received funding from other big polluters, like Chevron 50 and Peabody Energy.51-52 Executives from Peabody Energy, ConocoPhillips, and Sempra Energy also sit on its board of directors.53 What it says about climate change and its causes The Chamber publicly claims it “strongly supports continued environmental improvements, including sensible approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”54 In March 2014, for example, Karen Alderman Harbert, president and CEO of the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, insisted that the Chamber has “been a proponent on research and development, on advanced technologies, [and] the biggest supporter on energy efficiency legislation.”55 But when directly asked four times if the Chamber acknowledges that climate change is real and caused by humans, Harbert did not directly answer. Only after repeated questions on this topic did she concede that “it is caused by lots of different things,” going on to describe the scientific debate about the causes of climate change as an “ongoing discussion.”55 Public stance on the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement In response to the Paris Agreement, Vice President for Climate and Technology Stephen Eule lamented “[t]he White House’s overall domestic strategy of making energy more expensive and less abundant,” which, he said, was meant “to satisfy international constituencies, many of whom compete against the United States.”56 He also described the U.S.’ pledged reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to keep global temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius as “completely unrealistic.”57-58 Track record on climate policy Disputed Paris Agreement but stresses inclusion in deciding its fate. At COP21 in Paris, the Chamber stressed the need for business inclusion at UNFCCC negotiations and called for climate negotiators to “establish a defined and recognized role for business engagement in the final Paris Agreement.”59 But its critiques of critical elements of the Paris Agreement raise questions as to where the Chamber’s true interest lies. ● Opposed GHG emissions reductions. In February 2017, the Chamber lobbied for the withdrawal of a policy regulating GHG performance measures, describing it as “a particularly egregious case of regulatory overreach.”60 It asked that the U.S. government “reissue a revised rule without the GHG emissions measure and with any additional changes consistent with the administration’s focus on regulatory reform.”60 ● Top priorities include increasing fossil fuel production. Its priorities for 2017 include calls for increases in oil, gas, and coal production61 and promises to oppose “efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act<div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/</a></div><div>
</div><div>Even just two years ago, it was almost unimaginable that the conflicts of interest posed by the presence of fossil fuel corporations would be a primary topic at <a href="https://theleapblog.org/rescuing-the-climate-talks-from-corporate-capture-a-roadmap/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">any U.N. climate treaty meeting</a>. But our <a href="https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/blog/hope-and-determination-strong-climate-policy" style="text-decoration-line: none;">steady campaigning</a> has paid off in a big way: During the last two weeks, practically everyone involved in and covering the treaty meetings in Bonn, Germany, had something to say about the fossil fuel industry's conflicts of interest.A few days before the meeting, we released a report, <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/can-anyone-cook-worse-idea-un-climate-talks-giving-fossil-industry-front-seat" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Inside Job</a>, which exposed how groups representing industry interests are allowed access to climate treaty negotiations despite a hefty track record of undermining climate action. Media outlets from the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/28ad2bd8-2c34-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Financial Times</a>, to <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/08/business/climate-talks-begin-germany-some-countries-worry-business-groups-have-too-much" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">NPR</a>, to <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/05/big-polluters-un-climate-talks" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Mother Jones</a>, to <a href="http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2017-05/un-klimakonferenz-klimaschutz-usa-eu-lobbyismus-konzerne-donald-trump-bonn" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">mainstream German outlets</a>, to the <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/climat/article/2017/05/11/le-role-des-lobbys-industriels-dans-les-negociations-climat-sur-la-sellette_5126025_1652612.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">French Le Monde</a> covered the report. And when our team arrived in Germany, it was clear many government delegates had already read the exposé.Big polluters and governments that represent their interests (namely the U.S., Australia, and the European Union) quickly shifted from doubting this issue would gain traction to spending the first day and a half of the meetings intensifying their attempts to keep the issue from being discussed.You know you are doing something right when one of the most powerful industry front groups feels compelled to respond to your research. The Chamber of Commerce, which was featured in Inside Job and has received millions of dollars from Exxon Mobil, wrote an unconvincing blog post about why fossil fuel corporations need to be at the negotiating table.But despite the attempts by the industry to put the kibosh on discussions of conflicts of interests, we successfully made it the centerpiece topic during a workshop about the participation of non-Parties (read: all entities that are not government delegates). During the workshop, governments and civil society representatives demanded the U.N. treaty body address the irreconcilable conflicts of interest between the fossil fuel industry and the policies that must be made to slow and address the effects of climate change. International Policy Director Tamar Lawrence-Samuel reminded everyone that weeding out vested interests through conflict of interest policies is not the exception, but the norm, in governments and similar forums around the globe.<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" custom="custom" stopcorporateabuse_zen="stopcorporateabuse_zen" build="build" img="img" cai="cai" bg-repeat-light.png="bg-repeat-light.png" px="px" repeat="repeat" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" padding="padding" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; background: url(">Predictably, business groups and the governments that represent their interests intervened in defense of corporate inclusion. At one point, a delegate from Australia even went so far as to call Exxon Mobil a corporation that was leading on climate action!We followed the workshop with a packed press conference, and continued to keep this issue front and center throughout the rest of the meetings.With this success under our belts, we will continue to organize governments and allies to support the adoption of a policy that kicks big polluters out of the U.N. climate treaty for good. We know it's ambitious, and we also know it's possible. Most importantly, we know it must be done to save people and our planet from climate catastrophe.Kelle Louaillier is the president of Corporate Accountability International.</blockquote></div><div>=</div><a href="http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=17-P13-00021&segmentID=1">http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=17-P13-00021&segmentID=1</a>bonn COPBRAGG: The champions of this issue were clearly Ecuador, and actually Uganda. Ecuador spoke representing the like-minded developing countries. Uganda spoke representing the least developed countries block. And actually, Senegal spoke representing the African negotiating group. Altogether, those groups represent far more than 70 percent of the world's population. And so, they were the leaders, but they were supported by Cuba. China spoke very, very strongly in support of these limitations, saying that the voices of the vulnerable are often drowned out by the voices of the rich and wealthy corporate interests. And those who were opposed to this were pretty easy to identify. You're looking at the US, Australia, Russia, and to some extent, the European Union, all places where the fossil fuel industry is based and representing countries that have the most at stake economically with the continuation of business as usual when it comes to extracting and burning fossil fuels.CURWOOD: Jesse, talk to me about how these discussions in some ways parallel what happened at the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is back in 2003. What can we take away from how that treaty successfully put limitations on the tobacco industry's lobbying at those sessions?...BRAGG: It's a great example and a fantastic precedent to look to when you’re trying to figure out how to address industry influence in any policymaking process. When parties, governments, got together to hash out the framework convention on tobacco control, they quickly realized that one of the primary obstacles to their progress was the tobacco industry. You know, it's very easy to understand why the tobacco industry has no incentive to advance public health policy. Every step forward we take in public health and tobacco control means one less dollar in the pockets of tobacco industry. And so, they brought forward a really bold proposal, it was one line of text initially that just said that parties need to take steps to reduce the influence of the tobacco industry over public health. And since then, the implementation of this treaty has taken off. And that's really the model we need to look at when we're talking about the fossil fuel industry and climate change. We need information from them. They have a role. But we also need to limit their influence and understand that they shouldn't be writing the policy by which they need to abide.CURWOOD: What corporate associations are exercising the most undue influence on the climate talks in your opinion?BRAGG: The two organizations that really stood out in terms of influence over these recent talks were the International Chamber of Commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce. The International Chamber of Commerce, their role is really to keep the door open for businesses around the world. They believe, and they're very proud of it, that corporations, including the fossil fuel industry, need to be at the table helping parties write the rules that we're going to implement the Paris Agreement under, and so in that way they take every opportunity to advance and expand the access of the private sector. The US chamber actually held a side event at the UNFCCC talks in which they said that US fossil fuel corporations are going to be central to this process as well. One of their representatives actually then went on to say that the US is going to need to revise down its commitments to the Paris agreement, and more or less said that, people need to get used to that, that that’s the way it was, really towing the line of the Trump administration that these commitments need to be reviewed.CURWOOD: Now, under the Paris agreement, the fossil fuel industry will be selling their products perhaps as late as 2050. It will take a while to phase out what they do. If they are, in fact, going to be part of the energy mix going forward as they are right now, why shouldn't they have some input into these negotiation processes so that they can deal with their business in an orderly fashion?BRAGG: I think there's a big difference between having input and being part of a process, and what governments have been saying and what the sort of broad campaign around this is calling for, is to draw that line. When are we gathering input from those industries we're seeking to regulate and when are we actually allowing them to be part of the policymaking process? And so, certainly there's going to be a great need to consult with the industry and gather information from the industry as needed as we’re developing the implementation of this agreement, but the question here is not whether or not we need input. It's whether or not they should have a role in writing the rules, and that's what this discussion was about.
BRAGG: Well, it's a long process. Decisions are made by consensus at the UNFCCC, which means you need more or less the vast majority, if not all governments to agree, and so while that is a great process because it's inclusive, it does mean that things take time. We know the next milestone for this movement is next meeting in Bonn in May next year, so 2018, where parties will refer to submissions that governments and civil society groups have made on this issue and chart a path forward.CURWOOD: When can we expect some sort of formal limitations to be agreed upon in terms of corporate lobbying at the UN climate meetings, if ever?CURWOOD: Jesse Bragg is the Media Director of Corporate Accountability International.<a href="https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/president-obama-keeps-his-promise-electricity-rates-will-skyrocket-because-carbon">https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/president-obama-keeps-his-promise-electricity-rates-will-skyrocket-because-carbon</a>ca?
 =exxon knew:The investigations leveled against oil companies such as ExxonMobil are nothing short of “un-American,” according to one U.S. Chamber of Commerce official.“The idea that a group of attorneys general can get together and decide to collaborate and corroborate, to persecute not just a single company now but an industry, because they are ideologically opposed to the product it produces, is un-American,” Karen Harbert, president of Institute for 21st Century Energy, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/274710-chamber-state-investigations-into-fossil-fuel-companies-un-american" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; outline: 0px; background: transparent;">said Wednesday</a>.“It is a threat to the free enterprise system; it is a threat to the rule of law on which the free enterprise system depends,” Harbert added. “And we’re not going or stand for it.”Harbert is referencing a September investigation of ExxonMobil <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; outline: 0px; background: transparent;">conducted by InsideClimate News</a> and others. The investigation concluded Exxon had been allegedly untruthful about the breadth of knowledge it had concerning global warming.<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/31/us-chamber-of-commerce-official-says-fossil-fuel-witch-hunt-un-american/">http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/31/us-chamber-of-commerce-official-says-fossil-fuel-witch-hunt-un-american/</a>08.09.16<h1 class="main_page_title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 0px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; text-transform: uppercase;">WHITEHOUSE, SCHATZ CALL OUT EXXONMOBIL FOR CONTINUING TO FUND EFFORT TO BLOCK CLIMATE ACTION</h1><h2 class="subtitle" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: -10px; margin-bottom: 20px;">Senators detail Exxon’s continued funding of groups like ALEC, U.S. Chamber of Commerce | Exxon’s lobbying presence on Capitol Hill belies position on carbon fee legislation, Senators write</h2>Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) responded to a letter from ExxonMobil Corporation, which the oil giant had sent to both Senators in the wake of their Web of Denial floor action in July.  In its letter, ExxonMobil made the case that it no longer funds groups that deny the science of climate change and that it supports a carbon fee, like Whitehouse and Schatz’s American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act.Text of the Senators’ response is provided below.  ExxonMobil’s letter can be found <a href="http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/exxonmobil-letter-to-sen-whitehouse" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; background-color: transparent;">here</a>.  August 9, 2016Rex W. Tillerson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ExxonMobil 5959 Las Colinas Boulevard  Irving, Texas 75039-2298Dear Mr. Tillerson,We received nearly identical letters from Theresa Fariello, Vice President of ExxonMobil’s Washington Office, about recent Senate floor statements shining a light on a network of shadowy organizations – a web of denial with the purpose to obstruct action on climate change.  ExxonMobil’s prominent role funding the web for decades has been well documented by The Los Angeles Times, InsideClimate News, and others.  Ms. Fariello’s letter attempts to assure us that ExxonMobil now believes climate change is real, that it’s stopped funding climate deniers, and that it has long supported a revenue-neutral carbon fee.  That does not conform with our information and experience. In 2015, ExxonMobil funneled millions to groups peddling climate denial.  According to its publicly available 2015 Worldwide Global Giving report, over $1.6 million (20%) of ExxonMobil’s Public Information and Policy Research contributions went to the following organizations discussed during the web of denial floor statements.<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; line-height: 28.5714px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">American Legislative Exchange Council: $61,500</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research: $325,000</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Hoover Institution: $15,000</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Hudson Institute: $15,000</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Manhattan Institute: $200,000</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mercatus Center: $25,000</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation: $1,000,000</li></ul>ALEC’s climate obstructionism is particularly notorious, earning an entire website-- ALECclimatechangedenial.org—to debunk its work.  When an ExxonMobil official serves on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council, and your company is a top sponsor of ALEC’s recent annual meeting in Indianapolis, we find Ms. Fariello’s assurances less than assuring.Regarding ExxonMobil’s alleged seven years of support for a carbon fee, we’ve seen no meaningful evidence of that.  As authors of the bill or as leaders of our party, we would likely be aware of any such effort.  Senators Whitehouse and Schatz’s American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act meets all the relevant criteria mentioned in the letters, yet ExxonMobil has not endorsed the bill or lobbied our colleagues on its behalf.  Moreover, none of the top executives that make up ExxonMobil's management team has expressed interest in meeting with any of us to discuss the Whitehouse-Schatz proposal or any carbon fee legislation.  We find it hard to believe that ExxonMobil’s executives are unaware of the company’s professed support for a carbon fee.  Yet we see no support from the corporation and implacable opposition from your main lobbying groups--the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the various front groups.  The net lobbying position of ExxonMobil is vehemently against the carbon fee you claim to support.  Fortunately, this double standard is becoming increasingly evident to the public.  We too are put off by this difference between what you say and what we see you do.  But we want to assure you that we are always ready and willing to work with you in good faith on this global threat.  When you are ready to back up your words on climate action with your deeds, we welcome the opportunity to work with you in a sincere and honorable way.  polluterwatch:<a href="http://polluterwatch.org/us-chamber-commerce">http://polluterwatch.org/us-chamber-commerce</a><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-above" style="line-height: 15.6px;"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) is <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">“the world’s largest business federation,”</a> serving as a large-scale lobbying and litigation group for American businesses. The Chamber, led by CEO <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/tom-donohue" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Tom Donohue</a>, promotes largely conservative and libertarian values, particularly a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2232441" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">free-market ideology</a>.The <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">USCC website</a> professes to represent “more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions” but upon closer inspection it actually has <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/us-chamber-caves-membership-numbers" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">300,000 members</a>. The Chamber claims that over 90% of its members are small businesses, although its <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about/board/board-directors" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Board of Directors</a> and <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/issues" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">national policy efforts</a> show its heavy influence from large-scale corporations, especially since Tom Donohue became president and CEO in 1997. Additionally, only 249 of the 7,000<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110203633.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">local chambers</a> are members of the USCC, and a third of the Chamber's funding comes from just 19 corporations. Prior to Donohue, the Chamber supported Clinton’s healthcare reform and other projects opposed by the GOP and large corporations. With Donohue in charge, the <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.verini.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Chamber rarely strays from the GOP platform</a> and never challenges the policies of its corporate financers.
 </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-evidence field-type-text-long field-label-above" style="line-height: 15.6px;"><div class="field-label" style="font-weight: bold; border: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.5em; margin: 1em 0px; width: 640px; float: none; text-transform: uppercase;">EVIDENCE: </div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Stated position on climate change:
The Chamber's <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/invest-climate-science-guide-energy-economic-and-environmental-policy" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">position statement</a> on climate change urges continued scientific research on the topic, deferring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the US Climate Change Science Program. The Chamber warns that US climate policy would be "hugely expensive" but does not defer to scientific institutions or research bodies that have estimated the enormous costs that climate change already imposes on society (estimated at <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">$1.2 trillion per year</a>, worldwide). The Chamber claims that climate model predictions are unreliable, when in fact observations on global climate change have been relatively consistent with what climate scientsts have predicted (if anything, they are often conservative in estimating the degree to which climate change and associated consequences are occurring--see<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Skeptical Science</a>). The Chamber calls for "<a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/demonstrate-global-leadership-energy-security-and-climate-change" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">global leadership</a>" on climate change despite its consistent opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the global treaty initiated in 1997 that was never ratified by the United States.Position on Energy Sources:
The Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy’s “<a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/where-we-stand" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Where We Stand</a>” page makes energy efficiency and investment in clean energy look like a priority, placed above their calls for <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/commit-and-expand-nuclear-energy-use" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">expanded nuclear power</a>, “<a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/commit-use-clean-coal" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">clean coal</a>,” coal-to-liquids for<a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/transform-us-transportation" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">transportation fuel,</a> and immediate expansion of <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/immediately-expand-domestic-oil-and-gas-exploration-and-production" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">domestic oil & gas drilling</a> in the Outer Continental Shelf, the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. oil shale and tar sands extraction, and drilling in the Arctic permafrost. The Chamber has <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/shale" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">prioritized</a> the promotion of shale oil development and the <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/keystone-xl-pipeline" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Keystone XL pipeline</a>, creating websites for both issues (more on Keystone XL below).Obstruction of climate change policies and promotion of fossil fuels:
Several important corporate members, most notably Apple and utility companies Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502744.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">left the Chamber because of Donohue’s position on global warming</a>. Nike, Johnson and Johnson, and others have quit their board member positions and threatened to leave completely if Donohue and the Chamber did not own up to the reality of climate change. The Chamber has <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.verini.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">consistently blocked attempts at regulating greenhouse gasses</a> and has even called for climate science and the EPA to be put "on trial.”
While Tom Donohue and the Chamber publicly expresses a willingness to address climate change, it has <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2009/september/us-chambers-donohue-comments-climate-change" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">opposed all viable efforts to do so</a>. Following an EPA decision to classify carbon dioxide, as a greenhouse gas, as hazardous to human health, the Chamber submitted comments to the agency claiming that planetary warming would <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/more-chamber-commerces-climate-denial" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">“be beneficial to humans.”</a>
A significant portion of the Chamber's Board of Directors represent <a href="http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/10/chamber-commerce-vs-climate-change" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">companies that produce or burn fossil fuels</a>.
The Chamber's director of the Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs division, <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/william-kovacs" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Bill Kovacs</a>, also head of an oil industry front group called the Consumer Energy Alliance, runs "Project No Project," a program that includes attacks environmental regulations, opposition to the oil and gas industry, and renewable energy development.Exaggeration of Keystone XL pipeline jobs figures:
Along with TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce has <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201201120011" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">falsely stated that the Keystone XL pipeline would create 20,000 jobs</a> (each lasting one year)--a stark <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/following-sec-complaint-greenpeace-asks-trans/blog/38866/" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">contrast</a> to the US State Departments estimate of 7,000 and a <a href="http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf#page=6" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Cornell study</a> indicating the project would create less than 5,000 jobs for two years, with a total of 50 permanent positions. A <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/287168-gp-sec-transcanada-letter.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Greenpeace complaint filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission</a> revealed that the TransCanada jobs figure promoted by the US Chamber is unsubstantiated, and that TransCanada's job estimate for the US portion of the pipeline was overstated as compared to what they told the Canadian government for the Canadian portion of the pipeline. Chamber CEO Tom Donohue has <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201201120011" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">claimed</a> that the Keystone XL pipeline would create up to 250,000 jobs over its lifespan--an unsubstantiated figure.Top federal lobbying spender in the United States:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spends more money on federal lobbying than any other entity in the country. Since federal lobbying disclosure became mandatory in 1998, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a&indexType=s" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">the U.S. Chamber has spent just under $1 billion dollars</a>($983.7 million)--more than three times that of the next largest lobbying spender, General Electric.The Chamber has spent over <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000019798&year=2013" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">$16.7 million on lobbying</a> in the first quarter of 2013. The Chamber's five-year lobbying expenditures (2008-2012) amount to $596,418,500. Portions of this money have been used to influence <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues_spec.php?lname=US+Chamber+of+Commerce&year=2009&spec=Environment+%26+Superfund" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">specific legislative amendments</a> to the U.S. House American Clean Energy and Security Act, and energy-relation provisions of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The Chamber’s <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00082040" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Political Action Committee has spent $641,328</a> on political candidates and committees since the 2008 cycle.Election spending:
Following the Supreme Court's <a href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15635" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Citizens United</a> ruling, the Chamber used a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110203633.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">$75 million budget</a> to help elect notably conservative candidates in 2010. Over 80 corporations outside of U.S. borders contributed to the Chamber before the election, raising ethical concerns about funneling <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/28/thinkprogress-media-chamber/" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">foreign money</a> for domestic electioneering. The Chamber spent <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=US+Chamber+of+Commerce&cycle=2010" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">$33 million on disclosed electioneering communications</a> designed to support or oppose <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/recips.php?cmte=US+Chamber+of+Commerce&cycle=2010" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">target candidates</a> in the 2010 election, and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C30001101" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">$3 million</a> on disclosed electioneering communications in the 2012 election as part of a <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/09/news/economy/chamber-election/index.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">$36 million election spending push</a>.
The Chamber spent over $4 million on <a href="http://repoweramerica.org/blog/what-we%E2%80%99re-up-against-massey-energy%E2%80%99s-dirty-energy-megaphone/" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">advertisements</a> relating to energy and the environment in 2010.Promotion of fossil fuels in U.S. Chamber middle school curriculum:
In cooperation with Scholastic, the US Chamber designed a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-altman/scholastic-steps-into-the_b_771244.html" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">teaching program on US energy sources</a> for schools that presents information selectively in order to favor the importance of fossil fuel energy such as coal.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-links-resources field-type-link-field field-label-above" style="line-height: 15.6px;"><div class="field-label" style="font-weight: bold; border: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.5em; margin: 1em 0px; width: 640px; float: none; text-transform: uppercase;">LINKS AND RESOURCES: </div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S.Chamber_of_Commerce" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">SourceWatch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?year=2010&lname=US%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce&id=" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Open Secrets</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=113" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">ExxonSecrets</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/search/node/chamber%20of%20commerce" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">DeSmogBlog</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.fixtheuschamber.org/" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">US Chamber Watch - Public Citizen</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.uschamberofsecrets.org/" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">US Chamber of Secrets - 350.org</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.velvetrevolution.us/stop_chamber/" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">StopTheChamber</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://littlesis.org/org/33405/US_Chamber_of_Commerce" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Little Sis - US Chamber of Commerce</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.muckety.com/U-S-Chamber-of-Commerce/5006930.muckety" target="blank" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Muckety - US Chamber of Commerce relationship map</a></div></div></div> </div><div>=</div><div>exxon knew 8/1//16
 In any case, according to its own figures posted last week, ExxonMobil <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/global-warming/ucs-exxonmobil-climate-denial-funding-1998-2015.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">spent</a> $1.96 million on 16 denier and obstructionist groups last year. Ten of them, including the American Enterprise Institute, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/search/?q=ALEC" style="text-decoration-line: none;">American Legislative Exchange Council</a>, Federalist Society and Hoover Institution, were among those listed in the 2007 UCS report.So what is ExxonMobil getting for its money? Let's take a look at a handful of last year's grantees to find out.U.S. Chamber of Commerce:Half of ExxonMobil's 2015 denier donations—$1 million—went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the same amount it gave the Chamber in 2014.The chamber acknowledges that climate change is happening, but discounts the prevailing scientific consensus that it is largely due to human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels. When pressed about the Chamber's position during a March 2014 Senate hearing, Karen Harbert, head of the Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/here-is-exactly-what-the-chamber-of-commerce-thinks-about-global-warming/447177/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">replied</a> that there is a "robust debate" over what is causing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate change</a>. "It is caused by a lot of things," she insisted.[tobacco scam]Harbert's scientifically indefensible comment was not surprising. The Chamber has a long history of disputing climate science and that has alienated some of its members. In 2009, Apple, Exelon, Nike, PNM Resources and PG&E, for example, cancelled their memberships after Chamber Vice President William Kovacs <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/25/nation/na-climate-trial25" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">demanded</a> that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convene a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate science with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge ruling on the reality of global warming. "It would be evolution versus creationism," Kovacs explained. "It will be climate change science on trial."Those high-profile defections apparently had little impact on the Chamber's position. In May 2014, just days before the EPA announced its draft Clean Power Plan to reduce power plant carbon pollution, the Chamber released a grossly misleading <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">report</a> attacking the proposed rule. The report, which was also sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, was denounced not only by the <a href="https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/05/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-chamber-of-commerces-report/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">EPA</a>, but also by <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/30/its-epa-vs-us-chamber-commerce-over-climate-change/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">PolitiFact.com</a> and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/03/gop-lawmakers-rush-to-cite-study-to-discredit-new-epa-rule-but-study-assumed-epa-rule-would-be-tougher/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Washington Post</a>. Among its many faults, the report wildly inflated the cost of the rule and failed to consider the benefits of cutting carbon emissions.Last October, the Chamber and 14 other business associations <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/whos-fighting-clean-power-plan-and-epa-action-climate#bf-toc-6" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">filed</a> a lawsuit against the EPA, arguing that the Clean Power Plan exceeds the agency's authority to regulate the energy sector and the Chamber's priorities for 2016 include opposing EPA efforts to curb carbon emissions as well as the agency's science-based finding that global warming endangers public health and the environment.Manhattan Institute:ExxonMobil gave the Manhattan Institute $200,000 in 2015, boosting the company's total donations to the self-described free-market think tank to $1 million since 1998. In turn, the institute has been cranking out papers and articles denouncing efforts to cut carbon and maligning renewable energy technologies.Last summer, for example, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Oren Cass dismissed the idea of a carbon tax—ExxonMobil's supposed preferred policy—as a "shell game" in an <a href="http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-carbon-tax-shell-game" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">article</a> he wrote for National Affairs. He followed up that essay in October with a <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_19.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">white paper</a> calling the impending UN climate negotiations in Paris a "farce." What did Cass propose as a better solution? He urged policymakers to "abandon fruitless negotiations and focus instead on the realistic option of promoting innovation and preparing for any future adaptation that may be necessary."The institute's longtime point man on energy, Robert Bryce—who previously worked for the ExxonMobil-funded Institute for Energy Research—says he's "agnostic" about climate change. Over the years he has written numerous columns for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other publications praising oil, natural gas and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/search/?q=coal" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal</a> and disparaging wind and solar. A recent Bryce <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436228/wind-energy-subsidies-billions" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">column</a> in the National Review, for instance, denounced tax breaks and subsidies for the wind industry but ignored the fact that, since 1918, federal oil and gas industry <a href="http://www.dblpartners.vc/resource/what-would-jefferson-do/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">subsidies</a> have averaged $4.85 billion a year in today's dollars. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC):ALEC, a secretive lobby group that drafts sample corporate-friendly legislation for state lawmakers, has received $1.79 million from ExxonMobil since 1998 and that investment is still paying dividends. At ALEC's annual meeting last July, for example, corporate and legislator members collaborated on <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/jeff-deyette/alecs-annual-meeting-to-feature-more-attacks-on-successful-clean-energy-policies-813?ga=1.132384654.1683277237.1439828438" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">bills and resolutions</a> that would inhibit state implementation of the Clean Power Plan, hamper the solar industry from selling electricity directly to homes and businesses and undermine state renewable energy standards by restricting investment in wind and solar. One of the keynote speakers at that meeting, Stephen Moore—founder of the Club for Growth and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation—<a href="http://capitalandmain.com/latest-news/issues/society/alec-confidential-tales-from-the-supply-side-0724/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">declared</a> at a plenary session that the "biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming." ALEC's official position on climate change is only slightly more nuanced, leaving open the question of the role human activity plays. "Climate change is a historical phenomenon," its website <a href="https://www.alec.org/model-policy/alec-energy-principles/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">states</a> "and the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions." With that scientifically challenged position, it's no wonder ALEC <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/more-lies-from-alec-about_b_6149568.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">invites</a> speakers for its conferences from such notorious climate science denier groups as the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Heartland Institute and, of course, the Heritage Foundation—all former ExxonMobil grantees. While ExxonMobil and other major carbon producers Chevron and Peabody Energy remain steadfast ALEC members, more than 100 corporations have <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Corporations_that_Have_Cut_Ties_to_ALEC" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">severed ties</a> with the organization for a variety of reasons, including its stance on climate change. Those companies include a number of heavy hitters in the energy sector, including American Electric Power, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell. National Black Chamber of Commerce:From 2002 through last year, the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) received $1.1 million from ExxonMobil and the organization's president, Harry C. Alford, is unapologetic about taking fossil fuel industry money. "Of course we do and it is only natural," Alford <a href="http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/beyond-the-rhetoric/2428-fossil-fuels-and-african-americans-it-s-family" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">states</a> on the NBCC website. "The legacy of Blacks in this nation has been tied to the miraculous history of fossil fuel ... [F]ossil fuels have been our economic friend."Last summer, NBCC published a report that falsely <a href="http://nbccnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NBCC_FinalRev1.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">claimed</a> the Clean Power Plan would pose "economic hardship" on poor and minority Americans. A UCS <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/new-flawed-study-of-the-clean-power-plan-how-the-misi-study-gets-it-so-wrong-759?ga=1.61558572.1683277237.1439828438" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">analysis</a> found that the report was based on fraudulent claims from previously published studies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's anti-Clean Power Plan report from 2014. In fact, unchecked climate change would likely hurt poor and minority communities most.More recently, Alford wrote an <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/285944-the-epa-must-respect-the-supreme-courts-authority" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">opinion piece</a> attacking the Clean Power Plan for The Hill, a Washington political trade publication. Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's bogus 2014 report, Alford's June 29 column vastly exaggerated the cost of the proposed rule and did not factor in the billions of dollars in health and economic benefits that would result from cutting carbon pollution.ExxonMobil's Pretzel LogicLast fall, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/internal-documents-show-f_b_7749988.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">UCS</a> and reporters at <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">InsideClimate News</a> and the <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Los Angeles Times</a> revealed that Exxon's own scientists had warned the company decades ago about the potential for climate catastrophe. The new revelations also showed that the company responded to that bad news by downplaying climate risks and helping establish the climate science denial network.A number of journalists did follow-up stories, pressing ExxonMobil officials about the company's longtime support for denier groups. They didn't always get the same answer.During an interview last September with Richard Keil, ExxonMobil's senior media relations advisor, WNYC's On the Media host Bob Garfield pushed Keil for an explanation. "Please clarify this for me: Are not funding or did not fund them?" Garfield <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/story/exxon-responds-insideclimate-news/#transcript" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">asked</a>. Keil's response was unequivocal. "We are not funding," he said.When asked the same question by the New York Times in early November, then-Vice President of Public and Government Affairs Kenneth Cohen likewise said no. "We stopped funding them in the middle part of the last decade because a handful of them were making the uncertainty of the science their focal point," he <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?r=0%20Cohen%20NYT" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">said</a>. "Frankly, we made the call that we needed to back away from supporting the groups that were undercutting the actual risk" of global warming.Cohen's response wasn't a surprise. He made the same disingenuous claim back in February 2007, a few weeks after UCS disclosed that ExxonMobil had been spending millions of dollars on climate science denier groups. Greenwire, a trade news organization, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Greenwire-Cohen-Exxon-2-9-07.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">reported</a> that Cohen said the company "has stopped funding them."The surprise came on November 9, three days after the New York Times story ran, when PBS NewsHour host Judy Woodruff asked Cohen if ExxonMobil has been funding denier groups. This time he took a different tack."Well, the answer is yes," <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/exxon-mobil-mislead-public-climate-change-research/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">replied</a> Cohen, who retired from the company in January. "And I will let those organizations respond for themselves."But before anyone declares a victory for corporate transparency, it turns out that Cohen's moment of candor was, well, momentary.On December 1, a Washington Post story quoted yet another ExxonMobil spokesperson who qualified Cohen's remark. Alan Jeffers, a media relations manager, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/01/this-is-how-climate-doubt-becomes-powerful-and-spreads-into-the-media/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">said</a> the company "rejects the premise" that it has been funding climate science denial."We were engaged with funding public policy groups on policy issues, not on science," Jeffers explained. "We made our position known on some climate policies that made us unpopular with environmental activists and they tried to position that as us funding climate denial. And that's just not accurate."Not accurate? As Jeffers, Keil and their former boss, Cohen, surely know, the think tanks, advocacy groups and associations ExxonMobil has been sponsoring all these years lie about the science to strengthen the argument against doing anything to address climate change. After all, if people believe climate science is a fraud—or at least "far from settled"—they will see no reason to support a carbon tax, cap-and-trade system or any other climate policy. And that line of reasoning, which protects the status quo, seems to suit ExxonMobil just fine.Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://shutthechamber.org/news/american-rights-work-us-chambers-anti-union-agenda</div><div>
</div><div><h1 class="title" style="line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px;">AMERICAN RIGHTS AT WORK: The US Chamber's Anti-Union Agenda</h1><div id="content-area" style="line-height: 18.004px;"><div id="node-4288" class="node node-type-news build-mode-full clearfix"><div class="meta"><div class="content"><div class="field field-type-date field-field-date"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd">March 14, 2013</div></div></div><div class="field field-type-text field-field-author"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd">Capital Research Center</div><div class="field-item odd">
</div></div></div><div class="field field-type-link field-field-source"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Big Business Umbrella Group's Anti-Union Agenda</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-newsphoto"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd"><img src="/d9615ca5-485f-58dc-b0a4-13ec353d2c86.jpg"/></div></div></div>(originally published on July 27, 2008)The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s most powerful business lobbying organization<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">1</a>, has been campaigning against unions, fair labor practices, increases in the minimum wage, and legal protections for America’s workers for nearly a century.  The Chamber’s anti-union initiatives are just one part of its multi-issue agenda.  Unlike other anti-union organizations, this prominent lobbying force does not hide its alignment with big business.Headquartered in Washington, DC, the Chamber has an annual budget of $150 million<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#2" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2</a> and 300 staff members.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#3" style="text-decoration-line: none;">3</a>  With President Thomas J. Donohue at the helm, annual contributions to the hamber from its largest corporate members rose from $600,000 to $90 million in less than a decade.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#4" style="text-decoration-line: none;">4</a>  Since he took office in 1997, Donohue has built a more aggressive and politically-powerful Chamber not afraid to take on controversial issues at the request of its large corporate donors and the Bush White House.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#5" style="text-decoration-line: none;">5</a>  This direction has caused the Business Roundtable and other moderate members of the business community to distance themselves from the organization.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#6" style="text-decoration-line: none;">6</a>Even when Donohue first took office Business Week expressed caution at his “frontal assault on unions,” commenting that “Polls show strong public <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/#" id="FALINK_3_0_2" style="text-decoration-line: none;">support</a> for giving workers their piece of an expanding economic pie.”<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#7" style="text-decoration-line: none;">7</a>  Although <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=63&Itemid=110" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">an increasing number</a> of its member organizations pursue cooperative and socially-responsible labor relations, the Chamber continues to advocate against unions, and appears to be ramping up its attack. <div><h4 style="line-height: 1.3em; margin-top: 0.909em; margin-bottom: 0.909em;">The Role of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the Anti-Union Network
 </h4></div><h2 style="line-height: 1.3em; margin-top: 0.667em; margin-bottom: 0.667em;">Lobbying</h2><ul style="margin: 1em 0px; padding-left: 2em;"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">In 2004, the Chamber spent $24.5 million lobbying the federal government.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#8" style="text-decoration-line: none;">8</a>
 </li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Chamber<a id="norwood" name="norwood" title="norwood"> works closely with the Bush administration</a><a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#9" style="text-decoration-line: none;">9</a> and prominent anti-labor conservatives on Capitol Hill such as Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), head of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.  An anti-workplace safety zealot, Norwood was given the Chamber’s Spirit of Enterprise Award for his pro-Chamber voting record.  Norwood caused controversy this year for his <a href="http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/03/dead-miners-and-republican-abuse-of.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">insensitivity during Congressional hearings on the Sago mineworkers tragedy</a>, and for <a href="http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/07/06/american-blackout-voting-rights-in-danger/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">lobbying loudly against renewal of the Voting Rights Act.</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Chamber lobbies to oppose pro-worker legislation, including the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act, Fair Minimum Wage Act, and an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#10" style="text-decoration-line: none;">10</a>
 </li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Among the Chamber’s <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/default" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">legislative priorities</a> is opposition to the <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=36&Itemid=102" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Employee Free Choice Act</a> , which would strengthen labor law and provide workers with the right to union representation <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/majority-sign-up-qa.html" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">via the card check process</a> when a majority present signed union authorization cards to their employers.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#11" style="text-decoration-line: none;">11</a>  On May 4, 2006, the Chamber sent a letter to all Republican members of Congress urging them to support the Secret Ballot Protection Act,<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#12" style="text-decoration-line: none;">12</a> which would outlaw union recognition through <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/#" id="FALINK_2_0_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">card check</a>.  The Chamber also operates a website urging its members to pressure Congress on the issue.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#13" style="text-decoration-line: none;">13</a></li></ul><h2 style="line-height: 1.3em; margin-top: 0.667em; margin-bottom: 0.667em;"> Litigation</h2><ul style="margin: 1em 0px; padding-left: 2em;"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Its recent litigation efforts include an attempt to strike down a California law prohibiting the use of tax dollars for anti-union activity, and litigation to overturn county “Peace Agreement” ordinances.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#14" style="text-decoration-line: none;">14</a>
 </li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Chamber recently filed amicus briefs in <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/press-releases/press-releases/editorial-memo-workers-anticipate-reversal-of-rights-from-bush-appointed-labor-board.html" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">two significant cases before the National Labor Relations Board</a> to argue for rulings that limit the ability of workers to form unions.  One case could define millions of workers as supervisors, revoking their right to organize, and the other could effectively quash the card check method of organizing.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#15" style="text-decoration-line: none;">15</a>
 </li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Chamber has also lobbied the Bush administration on nominations to the National Labor Relations Board,<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#16" style="text-decoration-line: none;">16</a> and succeeded in placing one of their staffers on the Board.  In 2002, President Bush appointed Michael Bartlett, then Director of Labor Law Policy for the Chamber, to sit on the five-member Board in a recess appointment that lasted nearly one year. </li></ul><h4 style="line-height: 1.3em; margin-top: 0.909em; margin-bottom: 0.909em;">Sponsoring propaganda</h4>For decades, labor-community coalitions have joined together to hold corporations accountable for their treatment of employees.  Recently, the Chamber published <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/06union_campaigns.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a briefing book</a> aimed at attacking the motives and methods of these so-called ‘corporate campaigns.’<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#17" style="text-decoration-line: none;">17</a>  The author, Jarol B. Manheim, a George Washington University political scientist, not only villifies corporate campaigns, but finds danger in any critique of the corporate world.  Manheim previously testified about the subject before Rep. Norwood’s House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in 2002,<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#18" style="text-decoration-line: none;">18</a> and also serves as a <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/#" id="FALINK_1_0_0" style="text-decoration-line: none;">consultant on</a> anti-union matters, having written a confidential “Positioning Memo” to help Verizon in its intense efforts to fight its employees’ union activity.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#19" style="text-decoration-line: none;">19</a>The Chamber is reportedly behind the launch of a new, aggressive propaganda campaign against unions by <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0603,hunter,71775,24.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">“notorious DC lobbyist” Richard Berman</a>.  In February 2006, <a href="http://futureoftheunion.com/?p=2606" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">with the assistance of Chamber labor lobbyist Randel Johnson</a>,<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#20" style="text-decoration-line: none;">20</a> Berman created the <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=25&Itemid=212" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Union Facts</a>, a new front group responsible for a steady stream of anti-union TV commercials and full-page ads in major daily newspapers. <ul style="margin: 1em 0px; padding-left: 2em;"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Center for Union Facts’ legislative agenda is strikingly similar to the Chamber’s.  Berman has admitted to launching the Center for the purpose of halting workers’ ability to form unions through card check and to support the Chamber-backed Secret Ballot Protection Act sponsored by <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/chamber-of-commerce.html#norwood" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Charlie Norwood</a>, which would outlaw the currently voluntary card check process.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#21" style="text-decoration-line: none;">21</a>  Berman also recently divulged to The Wall Street Journal that the Center was formed to “wage a campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act,” <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/latest-updates-102/" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">bipartisan legislation</a> that would require employers to recognize unions formed by the card check process, which the Chamber also adamantly opposes.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#22" style="text-decoration-line: none;">22</a>
 </li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Berman has utilized Chamber connections for fundraising. Berman told The New York Times that he asked Chamber of Commerce officials at a state conference to recommend that businesses in their states donate to his anti-union campaign.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#23" style="text-decoration-line: none;">23</a>  Berman has declined to say <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12991631/" target="blank" title="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12991631/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">who has pumped $3 million</a>into his group, beyond claiming that funding comes from corporations, foundations, trade associations, and individuals.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#24" style="text-decoration-line: none;">24</a>  Randel Johnson has repeatedly denied any Chamber funding of the Center, yet admitted “he had served as an adviser to the Center.”<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#25" style="text-decoration-line: none;">25</a>
 </li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Berman does have longstanding ties with the Chamber, having served as its labor law director, planning union avoidance strategies for the organization from 1972-74.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#26" style="text-decoration-line: none;">26</a></li></ul><h4 style="line-height: 1.3em; margin-top: 0.909em; margin-bottom: 0.909em;">Connections to players in the anti-union movement</h4><ul style="margin: 1em 0px; padding-left: 2em;"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">A number of key players in the conservative movement have worked for the Chamber, including Grover Norquist, who served as the Chamber’s chief speechwriter in the 1980s.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Chamber does not pursue its anti-union agenda alone, it coordinates with a number of players in the anti-union movement.  For instance, it participates in Grover Norquist’s Alliance for Worker Freedom “Labor Reform Working Group” meetings.  The agenda of the December 2005 meeting of this group focused on a range of union-related issues, including card check, project labor agreements, and the Department of Labor’s new database on union information.<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/sources-20080727-592-273-273.html#27" style="text-decoration-line: none;">27</a>  Attendees included <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=25&Itemid=212" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Richard Berman</a>, along with representatives from the Chamber, the DOL, the anti-union Associated Builders and Contractors, Senator Bill Frist’s office, and Rep. Charlie Norwood’s office.</li></ul>You'd think a group called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) would be dedicated to promoting the needs and desires of America's workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, CDW spreads half-truths and lies about the <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/home/" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Employee Free Choice Act</a> to wage an ill-conceived assault on the rights and opportunities of millions of men and women across the country.  Here's the real scoop on the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace...CDW is a front group for business associations, industry lobbying groups, and right-wing policy centers who are against workers getting a fair shake in this economy. Its financial backers include some of the most virulent anti-worker and anti-union organizations in the country, including:<ul style="margin: 1em 0px; padding-left: 2em;"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">the <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/" target="self" title="U.S. Chamber of Commerce" style="text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a>, the nation’s most powerful business lobbying organization,</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a group whose biggest member is <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/wal-mart/" target="self" title="Wal-Mart" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Wal-Mart</a>, the poster child for low wages,</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">and the Associated Builders and Contractors, an association of anti-union contractors who fight against workers having unions to improve their wages and safety on the job.</li></ul>CDW is doing the dirty work for CEOs and corporate special interests. Too ashamed to be fighting publicly against policies that would provide workers with real economic opportunities, these companies instead use their <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/center-for-union-facts/bermans-front-groups.html" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">deep pockets</a> and <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">powerful influence</a> to fund CDW’s dishonest PR and lobbying campaign.The CEOs and multimillion dollar <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/#" id="FALINK_3_0_2" style="text-decoration-line: none;">business industry</a> groups backing CDW don’t care about democracy or privacy. They’re distorting the truth because they want to stop workers from having a better standard of living, access to health care, job security, and the rest of the benefits that accompany union membership.  These same groups oppose everything from paid sick days to fair pay and even the hugely popular Family and Medical Leave Act. It's unbelievable that business interests would suddenly care about privacy now, when corporations increasingly monitor employees’ every move – including <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/eye-on-the-nlrb/editions/employers-can-ban-union-related-email-says-nlrb.html" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">e-mail</a>, phone calls, personal belongings, and even <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/eye-on-the-nlrb/editions/big-brother-nixes-happy-hour.html" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">interactions outside of the workplace</a>.CDW spreads misinformation.  Contrary to the lies and distortions displayed in CDW’s new TV ad and on its website, the <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/home/" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Employee Free Choice Act</a> does not take <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/secret-ballots-arent-enough.html" target="self" title="Secret Ballots Aren't Enough" style="text-decoration-line: none;">secret ballots</a> away from workers. The legislation instead offers employees an alternative to the current, broken system that is slanted heavily in favor of management against workers. In fact, the bill would ensure that workers can choose their own union formation process, either through <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/why-majority-sign-up-is-needed.html" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">majority sign-up</a> or a National Labor Relations Board election.CDW’s own data and research is flawed. Instead of using well-respected academic research and public opinion <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/#" id="FALINK_1_0_0" style="text-decoration-line: none;">surveys</a> to test the merits and support for the Employee Free Choice Act, CDW released a poll in April 2008 claiming widespread opposition to the bill. However, even the most conservative political scientists and pundits could easily review the poll’s loaded questions and determine that it <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/fallacies_of_literalism.php" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">in no way accurately tested</a> the public’s perceptions on the issue.<hr style="height: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" />American Rights at Work will<table style="border-collapse: collapse; margin: 1em 0px;"><tbody style="border-top-style: none; border-color: initial; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px;"><tr><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/#" id="FALINK_2_0_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">continue</a> separating fact from fiction, exposing the <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/home/" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">deceptive front groups</a> that stand in the way of economic progress for workers in this struggling economy and <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/home/" target="self" style="text-decoration-line: none;">much-needed labor law reform</a>.1. T<a id="1" name="1" title="1">he Center for Public Integrity, Lobby Watch, </a><a href="http://publicintegrity.org/lobby/top.aspx?act=topcompanies" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Top 100 Companies and Organizations</a>.
2. <a id="2" name="2" title="2">Jeffrey Birnbaum, “A Quiet Revolution in Business Lobbying: Chamber of Commerce Helps Bush Agenda,” The Washington Post, 5 Feb. 2005: A1.
3</a><a id="3" name="3" title="3">. U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, “</a><a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about/default.htm?n=tb" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">About the U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a>,” accessed 12 June 2006.
4<a id="4" name="4" title="4">. Birnbaum A1.
5</a><a id="5" name="5" title="5">. Richard L. Berke, “Clinton Finds a Friendlier Chamber of Commerce,” New York Times, 14 Apr. 1993; Richard Miniter, “Clinton's unlikely boosters – U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs Bill Clinton's economic policies,” Insight on the News, 29 Mar. 1993; Birnbaum A1; P.B. Gray, “</a><a href="http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/6969936" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Inside the Chamber Under Thomas Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has become a probusiness powerhouse; Not everyone is celebrating</a>,” CFO Magazine, 1 June 2006.
6<a id="6" name="6" title="6">. Gray.
7</a><a id="7" name="7" title="7">. Mary Beth Regan and Amy Borrus, “Lock ‘N Load at the Chamber of Commerce,” Business Week, 8 Sept. 1997.
8</a><a id="8" name="8" title="8">.“Washington in Brief: Chamber Spent Record $53 Million in Lobbying,” The Washington Post, 15 Feb. 2005.
9</a><a id="9" name="9" title="9">. Birnbaum A1.
10</a><a id="10" name="10" title="10">. U.S. Senate Office of Public Records, U.S. Lobby Registration & Reporting Disclosure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (</a><a href="http://sopr.senate.gov/2005/01/000/031/000031161.gif" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">1</a>, <a href="http://sopr.senate.gov/2005/01/000/031/000031160.gif" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2</a>).
11<a id="11" name="11" title="11">. U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, “</a><a href="http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Union Recognition – Secret Ballot Elections and Card Check Coercion</a>,” accessed 12 June 2006.
12<a id="12" name="12" title="12">. Fawn Johnson, “Chamber Urges Republican Lawmakers To Ban 'Card-Check,' Require Elections,” Daily Labor Report, BNA Inc., 8 May 2006.
13</a><a id="13" name="13" title="13">. U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, “Union Recognition – Secret Ballot Elections and Card Check Coercion.”
14</a><a id="14" name="14" title="14">. Peace agreements generally stipulate that government contractors agree to allow unions to organize without running a contentious campaign, and unions agree not to engage in strikes or picketing against these employers. U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, “</a><a href="http://www.uschamber.com/nclc/caselist/active.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">NCLC list of active cases</a>,” accessed 12 June 2006.
15<a id="15" name="15" title="15">. Brief of Amici Curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States , the Ohio Hospital Association and the Society for Human Resource Management, Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Sept. 2003; Brief of Amici Curiae, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Council on Labor Law Equality in support of Petitioners, Dana Corp. /Metaldyne Corp, July 2004.
16</a><a id="16" name="16" title="16">. U.S. Senate Office of Public Records, </a><a href="http://sopr.senate.gov/2006/01/000/080/000080405.gif" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Lobby Registration & Reporting Disclosure Addendum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a>.
17<a id="17" name="17" title="17">. Jarol B. Manheim, “</a><a href="http://www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/06union_campaigns.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Trends in Union Corporate Campaigns</a>,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2005.
18<a id="18" name="18" title="18">. Jarol B. Manheim, </a><a href="http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/wp/uniondues72302/manheim.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce</a>, 23 July 2002.
19<a id="19" name="19" title="19">. Steven Syre, “Battle Preparations,” The Boston Globe, 5 Aug. 2003.
20</a><a id="20" name="20" title="20">. Steven Greenhouse, “Group Starts Anti-Union Campaign,” The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2006: C1.
21</a><a id="21" name="21" title="21">. Greenhouse C1; Diane Lewis, “Hub radio stations to air anti-union ads,” The Boston Globe, 22 Feb. 2006.
22</a><a id="22" name="22" title="22">. Kris Maher, “Sign of a Possible Power Shift In Congress Have Unions Going All Out to Reach Voters,” The Wall Street Journal, 28 Aug. 2006: A2.
23</a><a id="23" name="23" title="23">. Greenhouse C1.
24</a><a id="24" name="24" title="24">. “Wal-Mart denies it backs anti-union group,” Associated Press, 26 May 2006.
25</a><a id="25" name="25" title="25">. Greenhouse C1.
26</a><a id="26" name="26" title="26">. David Whitford, “Labor's Lost Chance,” The Washington Post, 28 Sept. 1998: C3.
27</a><a id="27" name="27" title="27">. Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, </a><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=135" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">media release 22 June 2006</a>.
28<a id="28" name="28" title="28">. Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, </a><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=135" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">media release 22 June 2006</a>.
29<a id="29" name="29" title="29">. U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, “</a><a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about/default.htm?n=tb" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">About the U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a>,” accessed 12 June 2006.
30<a id="30" name="30" title="30">. Jeffrey Birnbaum, “A Quiet Revolution in Business Lobbying: Chamber of Commerce Helps Bush Agenda,” The Washington Post, 5 Feb. 2005: A1.</a></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div>
=
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/exposing-trumps-trade-appeal-working-class-voters-what-it">http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/exposing-trumps-trade-appeal-working-class-voters-what-it</a>

Trump is selling himself as the champion of working-class voters. He says Democrats and their presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, are selling them out with trade deals. But Trump is just a fraud.Unfortunately, President Obama is pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and Clinton is not confronting him for doing so.That has to change—fast. Clinton must publicly, directly and loudly challenge President Obama and demand that he withdraw TPP from consideration by Congress.Trump’s Trade SpeechTrump’s speech on trade and “globalization” issues attempted to frame Clinton and Democrats as being on the side of the “Wall Street” forces that have pushed low-wage policies on working-class Americans. He is using the upcoming and hated TPP being pushed by President Obama as an example of this, saying Clinton is only “pretending” to oppose TPP in order to get votes.From the speech:<blockquote>The legacy of Pennsylvania steelworkers lives in the bridges, railways and skyscrapers that make up our great American landscape.But our workers’ loyalty was repaid with betrayal.Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization—moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas.Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.[...] The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge nothing will ever change.</blockquote>In Trump’s usage, the words “trade” and “globalization” mean one and only one thing: moving American jobs and factories to low-wage countries. This movement of jobs in recent decades, pitting American workers against exploited workers who are paid squat and can’t do anything about it, has been used as one lever to intentionally create unemployment, break the unions and force down wages. (Inflation panic leading to Federal Reserve interest rate increases, deficit scares leading to austerity—especially the refusal to spend on infrastructure—and obstruction leading to minimum wage stagnation are others.)Trump is appealing to disaffected working class workers who used to vote Democratic, but have seen their jobs shipped out of the country and/or their wages cut or stagnate. These workers see Democrats as complicit in adopting free-trade deindustrialization policies. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), pushed and signed by President Clinton, has become a catchall symbol of this disaffection with free-trade policies, but Democrats are generally seen as having done little to fight such policies.President Obama contributed to the problem by campaigning with a promise to renegotiate NAFTA, then reneging on this promise once elected.Trump also went after the Chamber of Commerce for their TPP support, implying they back Clinton. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html?r=0">The New York Times reports</a>:<blockquote>Pressing his staunch opposition to trade deals, Donald J. Trump escalated his attacks on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, saying it was “totally controlled by the special interest groups.”“They’re a special interest that wants to have the deals that they want to have,” he told a packed arena at a rally here, to whoops and cheers. “They want to have T.P.P., the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the worst deals, and it’ll be the worst deal since NAFTA.”[...] saying the Chamber was “controlled totally by various groups of people that don’t care about you whatsoever.”</blockquote>Obama Pushing TPP As Election Nears
</div><div>sen report --> defectors?!</div><div>[appendix shows 1/2 co have policies or statements on tob and climate, but many of latter clearly BS ev So co.]</div><div>
</div><div><header><h1 class="entry-title" style="line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0.231em;"><a href="http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-issue-report-on-us-chamber-of-commerce-lobbying" class="url" rel="bookmark" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Senators Issue Report on U.S. Chamber of Commerce Lobbying</a></h1><h2 style="line-height: 1.25; margin: 0px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); padding: 0.618em 0px;">Whitehouse, Warren, Boxer, Sanders, Brown, Merkley, Blumenthal, Markey investigation finds that Chamber Board do not stand with the Chamber on tobacco, climate lobbying</h2><div>http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=7c225de8-0d47-4c02-bc4e-5a3e932cc9f1&download=1</div></header><time class="dateline" datetime="2016-06-14" style="font-weight: bold; display: block; padding: 0.611em 0px; margin: 1em auto 0px;">Tuesday, June 14, 2016</time>Washington, D.C. – Tonight, a group of Senators led by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and joined by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Edward Markey (D-MA) released findings of an investigation into the lobbying activities of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the purported voice of America’s business community and the largest lobbying force in the country.  In their report, the Senators examine whether the Chamber actually represents the views of its Board of Directors and their companies on two major public health issues: tobacco use and climate change. Through extensive research and correspondence with Board members, the Senators’ investigation reveals a dramatic split between the Chamber’s lobbying positions on tobacco and climate change and the actions and views of its members.  The report shows that not one of the 108 Board members questioned during the course of the investigation openly endorses the Chamber’s lobbying activities on these issues, and that roughly half – if not more – of the companies represented on the Chamber’s Board have adopted anti-tobacco and pro-climate positions that contrast sharply with the Chamber’s activities.  In addition, Board members revealed that they have had no knowledge of or input into the Chamber’s lobbying activities on tobacco or climate issues, betraying a critical lack of transparency in the Chamber’s internal operations. In a letter accompanying the report to be sent to Board members, the Senators write, “We found a corporate America far more concerned about public health and the environment than the Chamber’s efforts would suggest.  We identified dozens of companies investing heavily to get their employees to stop smoking because they realize a healthy workforce is a productive one.  We identified companies from all corners of the economy working to reduce their carbon footprints and affirmatively supporting the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan and its international efforts at the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris. “Chamber members, many of whom act commendably on their own, undermine their own efforts by affiliating with an organization that actively and aggressively undermines efforts to reduce tobacco use and tries to prevent action to address climate change.  By lending tacit support to an organization that has spearheaded a decades-long effort against policies to address both problems, member companies become de facto promoters of tobacco and adversaries of climate action.”The report can be accessed <a href="http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=7c225de8-0d47-4c02-bc4e-5a3e932cc9f1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">HERE</a>.The cover letter to Chamber Board members accompanying the report is included below.June 15, 2016Dear Chamber Board Member,Last year, following a New York Times investigation into the United States Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to promote tobacco use abroad and to undermine President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, we wrote to you and other members of the Board of Directors asking whether your companies support the Chamber in these endeavors.  Enclosed is a new report summarizing our findings.  The report raises serious questions about the Chamber’s credibility and its actions on tobacco and climate policy, and indicates that the Chamber does not accurately represent the positions, input, and knowledge of its membership.   The Chamber is the largest lobbying organization in the country.  In Washington, when the Chamber speaks, many elected officials listen.  Presumably, your company is a member of the Chamber because it values the influence that the Chamber has with policymakers in Washington and believes the Chamber represents its interests.When it comes to two of the most significant public health issues of our day—tobacco use and climate change—we found the Chamber’s activities to be starkly out of step with the stated interests or actions of its board member corporations.  Based on the responses to our letters and our own additional research, we found no Chamber Board members willing to wholeheartedly support the Chamber’s efforts on tobacco and climate change.  In fact, our research shows that nearly half of the Chamber’s Board member companies have adopted policies that are inconsistent with the Chamber’s efforts on these issues. Our methodology was straightforward.  First, we asked the 108 companies with representatives on the Chamber’s Board whether they support the Chamber’s efforts on climate and tobacco.  Then, we augmented the responses we received with research of publicly available information company positions on tobacco and climate change, comparing those with the Chamber’s activities. We found a corporate America far more concerned about public health and the environment than the Chamber’s efforts would suggest.  We identified dozens of companies investing heavily to get their employees to stop smoking because they realize a healthy workforce is a productive one.  We identified companies from all corners of the economy working to reduce their carbon footprints and affirmatively supporting the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan and its international efforts at the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris. Chamber members, many of whom act commendably on their own, undermine their own efforts by affiliating with an organization that actively and aggressively undermines efforts to reduce tobacco use and tries to prevent action to address climate change.  By lending tacit support to an organization that has spearheaded a decades-long effort against policies to address both problems, member companies become de facto promoters of tobacco and adversaries of climate action.We were disappointed that so many Board members declined to respond to our letters.  Many who did respond either claimed ignorance of the Chamber’s efforts, or sought to align their membership with other issues on which the Chamber lobbies.   Iconic American companies, such as Apple and CVS, left the Chamber when it became clear that membership was working against their corporate goals.  When these companies promote their environmental and public health initiatives, we can have confidence that they mean what they say. We hope this report will cause you to take a close look at the Chamber’s positions on tobacco and climate, and at the effects in Congress of your continued affiliation with the Chamber on these issues.  It claims to be a membership-driven, representative organization, but our research suggests it is neither.  Sincerely,cc: Tom Donahue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce<a href="http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-issue-report-on-us-chamber-of-commerce-lobbying">http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-issue-report-on-us-chamber-of-commerce-lobbying</a>
 senCoCrept16
 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Out of Step with the American People and Its Members
 The United States Chamber of Commerce is the largestlobbying organization in the country. OpenSecrets, anonprofit, nonpartisan research group that tracks theeffects of money and lobbying, showed that in 2015alone, the Chamber spent roughly $85 million onlobbying efforts, more than twice the amount spent bythe second-highest organization (the National Associationof Realtors). 10 During the 2013-2014 election cycle,the Chamber spent $35 million on political expenditures(through super PACs, 501(c) organizations, and/or political party committees) that were “outside” orindependent of candidates’ campaign committees. 11The Chamber has used its considerable resources tofight legislation and government action on tobaccoand climate change at home and abroad. A series of2015 New York Times articles exposed the Chamber’saggressive activities helping the tobacco industry to fightinternational antismoking laws, regulations, and policies,12 and described the organization’s systematic efforts toundermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s work toaddress climate change and carbon pollution. 13
 ...it represents the “interests of more than three millionbusinesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions” when itinteracts with Congress, 15 its positions and actionson tobacco and climate do not appear to reflect orcommunicate the positions of many of its membercompanies. The following analysis shows thatapproximately half of the companies on the Chamber’sBoard of Directors have publicly taken positions ontobacco and climate change that are in conflict withthe Chamber’s actions and positions. This calls intoquestion the Chamber’s allegedly transparent decisionmakingprocess, and suggests that the Chamber doesnot accurately represent the positions of its membercompanies.
 Moreover, the Chamber’s lobbying is at odds with its ownpublic positions. The organization strongly professes thatit is anti-tobacco, saying that it “is not in the business ofpromoting cigarette smoking at home or abroad, period.”16 It also claims to support the environment, saying thatit “has in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony,supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissionsin the atmosphere,” and calling for a “comprehensiveclimate change law.” 17 Plainly, there is a broad gapbetween the Chamber’s stated policies, its Boardmembers’ positions, and its actual lobbying activities....
 When the Chamber weighs in, many in Washington, D.C.,listen. The Chamber is the largest lobbying organizationin the country and claims to represent the “interests ofmore than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, andregions” when it interacts with Congress. OpenSecrets, anonprofit, nonpartisan research group that tracks the effectsof money and lobbying, showed that in 2015 alone, theChamber spent roughly $85 million on lobbying efforts,more than twice the amount spent by the second-highestorganization (National Association of Realtors). 33 Duringthe 2013-2014 election cycle, the Chamber spent $35million on political expenditures (through super PACs,501(c) organizations, and/or political party committees) thatwere “outside” or independent of candidates’ campaigncommittees. 34
 The Chamber has aggressively lobbied—in the United Statesand abroad—in support of tobacco and climate policies thatare directly at odds with science, public health, and publicopinion. In June 2015, The New York Times reported that“the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its foreign affiliateshave become the hammer for the tobacco industry, engagingin a worldwide effort to fight antismoking laws of all kinds.”35 The Chamber’s efforts span the globe, from fightingtobacco advertising bans in Uruguay to opposing graphichealth warnings on tobacco labels in Burkina Faso. 36 TheChamber has lobbied to ensure tobacco companies areable to sue under future intern...TPP]
  The Chamber has lobbied to ensure tobacco companies areable to sue under future international treaties, including theTrans-Pacific Partnership. 37
 The Chamber has attacked U.S. climate policies with similarzeal. According to The New York Times,in early 2014, a group of 30 corporatelawyers, coal lobbyists, and Republicanpolitical strategists gathered at theChamber’s headquarters to devise legalstrategies to dismantle the President’s CleanPower Plan—before President Obama hadeven introduced a draft proposal of it. 38The Chamber has also been vocal aboutits opposition to climate action whentestifying before Congress. For instance,the Chamber has testified in oppositionto the Paris Agreement, 39 despite the factthat many of its Board member companieshave pledged to support the goals of theAgreement. 40 Additionally, nearly all ofChamber campaign contributions—94%—have reportedly gone to climate changedenier candidates...
 range of certifiation?]
 • Ceres Climate Declaration—A voluntary declarationsigned by more than 1,000 companies and individuals,who acknowledge that “[t]ackling climate change is oneAmerica’s greatest economic opportunities of the 21stcentury.” 44• Ceres Company Network—A voluntary network ofcompanies that agree to improve their environmentaland social performance; publicly report on theirsustainability strategies; engage with Ceres Coalitioninvestors, sustainability experts, and other stakeholders;and continuously improve on their sustainabilityperformance and disclosure. 45
 • National Climate Coalition—A multi-industry coalitionwhose members support congressional action toregulate greenhouse gases, as well as the role ofthe Environmental Protection Agency in regulatinggreenhouse gases. 46• Paris Pledge for Action—A voluntary pledge bybusinesses, cities, civil society groups, investors,regions, trade unions and other signatories, whichpromise to “ensure that the ambition set out by theParis Agreement is met or exceeded to limit globaltemperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius.” 47
 • U.S. Climate Action Partnership—An alliance (nowinactive) of more than 30 companies and organizationsthat called upon U.S. government leaders to takemeasures to slow, stop, and reverse the growth ofgreenhouse gas emissions. 48
 • Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI)—Aglobal index of corporations and businesses thathave voluntarily disclosed their efforts to managegreenhouse gas emissions and climate change risksand opportunities. The CDLI is compiled by the CDP(formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project). 49• Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI)—An indexassessing the sustainability practices and performanceof nearly two thousand companies across a variety ofsectors. 50
 • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ClimateLeadership Award—A national award program thatrecognizes and incentivizes exemplary corporate,organizational, and individual leadership in response toclimate change. 51• EPA SmartWay Excellence Award—An award honoringSafeWay Transport Partnership company members fortheir notable actions to reduce emissions...
  Findings
 Based on the responses to the Tobacco and Climate Lettersand public positions and policies of Board members, thereport finds that:• Approximately half of the companies on the U.S.Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors have antitobaccoand/or pro-climate positions.
 • None of the respondents to the Tobacco and ClimateLetters expressed explicit support for the Chamber’sactivities, and numerous Chamber Board membersdistanced themselves from Chamber activities ontobacco or climate.
 • The Chamber’s decision-making process lackstransparency, even with respect to its Board members.A number of Board members were unaware of keyChamber policymaking and lobbying decisions ontobacco and climate.
 Tobacco FindingsAlmost half of the Chamber Board members (49 of 108, 
 ...Climate Change Findings
 Almost half of the Chamber Board members (52 of 108,48%) have taken public positions supporting efforts toreduce carbon emissions and address climate change,including eight of the companies that responded to theSenate inquiry on Chamber climate policies (see AppendixV). The remaining Board member companies appear to haveno public position on climate change as a public health orenvironmental issue.
 These 52 companies that support efforts to address climatechange, have undertaken their own initiatives to reducecarbon emissions, support the EPA’s work on climatechange, or have publicly committed to support of the ParisAgreement. 
 ...VI. Conclusion
 The Chamber claims that it “reflects the grassroots viewsof the entire business community when the organizationtestifies before Congress or regulatory agencies, disseminatesreports or statements to the media, or sends commentsor letters to Capitol Hill and to policymakers.” 87 It statesthat “everyone involved in the process must help developpositions that benefit the entire business community, ratherthan any given narrow interest . . . The process must be openand above board.” 88
 But this investigation finds these claims to be plainlyuntrue. Despite its claims of a representative policy-makingprocess, the Chamber does not speak for many of its Boardmembers on two of the most pressing public health issuesof our time. The discrepancy between how the Chamberand its Board members act on tobacco and climate is stark.Bloomberg columnist Barry Ritholtz contends that it is easyfor the Chamber to ignore its numerous member companiesthat oppose its stance because one third of its revenuecomes from just 19 companies, many of them in the energyindustry. 89
 Indeed, based on the responses of Chamber Board membercompanies, the Chamber seems to act at will, withoutbroadly consulting its leading members about fundamentalpolicy positions on which it spends millions of dollars incollected dues.
 Some American business icons have demonstratedleadership by disaffiliating themselves from the Chamberover fundamental policy disagreements. Apple, Exelon,and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), have left the Chamberover its destructive climate policies. 90 Nike left the Boardfor similar reasons, 91 and other members—Intel, Johnson &Johnson, and Microsoft—publicly disagree with and distancethemselves from the Chamber’s climate position. 92 And CVSHealth withdrew its membership from the Chamber last yeardue to the group’s tobacco lobbying. 93
 Many Chamber members do good work to address the risksof tobacco and climate change. But too many of thesemembers quietly disapprove of the Chamber’s positionswithout taking action. As long as these Board memberslend their tacit support to an organization that spearheadssystematic efforts against policies to limit tobacco andclimate change, it is difficult to accept their claims that theyare anti-tobacco or good on climate.
 We encourage Chamber Board members to stop lookingthe other way where there is disagreement, and defendingtheir Chamber membership as supporting free speech. Thispositioning makes it appear as though they’re trying to haveit both ways and damages their credibility and efforts insupport of positive action. 94 These companies should takeresponsibility for the positions and actions of the Chamber,and use their leverage as an opportunity to shift the tenor ofa powerful lobbying force away from harming public healthand towards positions that help reduce tobacco use and address the risks of climate change.</div><div></div><div>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/us-chamber-of-commerce-tobacco-climate-change.html</div><div>
</div><div><p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="288" data-total-count="288" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">None of the 108 board members of the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/chamber_of_commerce_us/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the United States Chamber of Commerce." class="meta-org">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a> came forward to explicitly support the lobbying group’s policies on tobacco and <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="Recent and archival news about global warming." class="meta-classifier">climate change</a>, according to a new report from a group of eight Senate Democrats, including Senator <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/elizabeth_warren/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Elizabeth Warren." class="meta-per">Elizabeth Warren</a> and Senator <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/bernie-sanders-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Bernard Sanders." class="meta-per">Bernie Sanders</a>.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="272" data-total-count="560" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">The report, which was written by Senator Warren and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, followed on <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/international/us-chamber-works-globally-to-fight-antismoking-measures.html">reporting</a> by The New York Times that revealed the chamber’s international campaign against antismoking laws and its efforts to undermine policies aimed at curbing global warming.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="247" data-total-count="807" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">“The chamber’s lobbying is at odds with its own public positions,” the report found. It noted that the “organization strongly professes that it is anti-tobacco” and has claimed to support “efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="184" data-total-count="991" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">In a statement, the chamber described the report’s contents as a “partisan line of attack” that was “egregiously false” and recycled “old myths and tired talking points.”<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="533" data-total-count="1524" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">The Times reported that the chamber had focused on antismoking measures advanced by health advocates from Ukraine to Nepal to Australia. The measures targeted by the chamber included restrictions on smoking in public spaces, bans on <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/smoking_and_tobacco/menthol_cigarettes/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">menthol</a> and slim cigarettes, curbs on tobacco advertising, excise-tax increases and graphic warning labels. Thomas J. Donohue, the head of the chamber, personally lobbied the speaker of the House, the United States trade representative and the Irish prime minister on the tobacco industry’s behalf.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="377" data-total-count="1901" id="story-continues-1" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">The chamber’s campaign has aroused the ire of the World Health Organization, and it put the four health care companies that serve on the chamber’s board — Anthem, the Health Care Service Corporation, the Steward Health Care System of Boston and the Indiana University Health system — in an awkward position. CVS Health Corporation <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/business/cvs-health-quits-us-chamber-over-stance-on-smoking.html">quit the chamber</a> over the revelations.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="304" data-total-count="2205" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/obama-unveils-plan-to-sharply-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html">Another report</a> from The Times last year focused on the chamber’s efforts to dismantle President Obama’s climate change regulations. The chamber convened regular meetings of corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists more than a year before the regulations were introduced.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="190" data-total-count="2395" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">The report highlights that even though the board is described as “the principal governing and policy-making body of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” the members are often left in the dark.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="307" data-total-count="2702" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">“Approximately half of the companies on the chamber’s board of directors have adopted anti-tobacco and pro-climate positions that contrast sharply with the chamber’s activities,” according to the report. “Not a single board member explicitly supported the chamber’s lobbying efforts,” it said.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="174" data-total-count="2876" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">Ten companies serving on the board told the Senate inquiry that “they had no knowledge of or input into the chamber’s lobbying activities on tobacco or climate issues.”<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="363" data-total-count="3239" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">The report was also backed by Senators Barbara Boxer of California, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Ed Markey of Massachusetts. It was undertaken to determine whether the chamber’s board actually supported its secretive lobbying activities, and to further publicize the gap between the chamber and its board.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="393" data-total-count="3632" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">The chamber has found itself in a difficult position. Under the leadership of Mr. Donohue, the chamber has become the country’s largest lobbying organization and a stalwart of the Republican Party that has made keeping control of the Senate <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/05/20/u-s-chamber-launches-campaign-to-bolster-republican-senate-races/">a priority</a>. But it has been thrown off its stride by the elevation of Donald Trump, who opposes chamber priorities like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="320" data-total-count="3952" data-node-uid="1" times="times" new="new" roman="roman" serif="serif" max-width="max-width" none="none" width="width" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 75px; line-height: 1.625rem;">In a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-09/trump-will-lose-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-president-says">December interview</a> with Bloomberg, Mr. Donohue said Mr. Trump “won’t be the next president,” adding that he is “entertainment, but he’s not leadership for the American people.” In May, he said, “I hear <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/washington-donald-trump-republicans-connected.html">mostly concern</a> from our members. Who is this guy? What do we know about him? How will he behave?”</div><div>
</div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/obama-unveils-plan-to-sharply-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/obama-unveils-plan-to-sharply-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>In the early months of 2014, a group of about 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists began meeting regularly in the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, often, according to some of the participants, in a conference room overlooking the White House. Their task was to start devising a legal strategy for dismantling the climate change regulations they feared were coming from President Obama.</div><div>
</div><div>The group — headed in part by Roger R. Martella Jr., a top environmental official in the George W. Bush administration, and Peter Glaser, a prominent Washington lobbyist — was getting an early start.</div><div>
</div><div>By the time Mr. Obama announced the regulations at the White House on Monday, the small group that had begun its work at the Chamber of Commerce had expanded into a vast network of lawyers and lobbyists ranging from state capitols to Capitol Hill, aided by Republican governors and congressional leaders. And their plan was to challenge Mr. Obama at every opportunity and take the fight against what, if enacted, would be one of his signature accomplishments to the Supreme Court.</div><div>
</div><div>Within minutes of the announcement, West Virginia’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, stepped before a bank of cameras for a news conference at the Greenbrier resort in his home state. Flanked by Mike Duncan, the president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, one of the nation’s top coal lobbying groups, and Greg Zoeller, the attorney general of Indiana, Mr. Morrisey announced that a group of at least 15 Republican state attorneys general were preparing to jointly file a legal challenge to Mr. Obama’s proposal.</div><div>
</div><div>“The final rule announced Monday blatantly disregards the rule of law and will severely harm West Virginia and the U.S. economy,” Mr. Morrisey said. “This rule represents the most far-reaching energy regulation in this nation’s history, drawn up by radical bureaucrats and based on an obscure, rarely used provision of the Clean Air Act.”</div><div>
</div><div>“Our coalition, in short order, will comprise of many states, consumers, mine workers, coal operators, utilities and businesses who are united in opposition to this radical and illegal policy,” he added.</div><div>
</div><div>While Mr. Obama had not even put forth a draft proposal of his plans when the group started its work, the president had made plain in several speeches that he intended to act forcefully on climate change — and that he would flex the muscle of his executive authority to do so. “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” he said in his 2013 State of the Union address. The lawyers and lobbyists wanted to be ready to fire back hard and fast when he did.</div><div>
</div><div>Continue reading the main story</div><div>
</div><div>RELATED COVERAGE</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Opinion Editorial</div><div>President Obama’s Tough, Achievable Climate Plan AUG. 3, 2015</div><div>
</div><div>Opinion Joe Nocera</div><div>Obama’s Flexible Fix to Climate Change AUG. 4, 2015</div><div>Opinion Op-Ed Contributors</div><div>A Climate Plan Businesses Can Like AUG. 3, 2015</div><div>
</div><div>Opinion Op-Ed Contributor</div><div>Obama Takes a Crucial Step on Climate Change AUG. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In devising its strategy, the group worked closely with the office of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader whose coal-producing home state also stands to suffer under the regulation. While Mr. McConnell opposes the climate change regulations, his advisers knew that he had little chance of enacting legislation to block them in Congress. Instead, Mr. McConnell has taken the unusual step of reaching out directly to governors and attorneys general, urging them to refuse to submit compliance plans for the regulations, and encouraging a state-by-state rejection of the rules.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Morrisey, whose coal-producing home state is also struggling with the nation’s highest unemployment rate, was chosen as the public face of the suit. But key strategists joining the original planning were Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a former attorney general there, and Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma. Both already had experience suing the Obama administration over major Clean Air Act regulations.</div><div>
</div><div>An important ally in the effort was the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a conservative advocacy group that pushes policy through state legislatures. Typically, the council’s committees of corporate members will craft a model bill designed to push through policies it supports, such as rolling back environmental regulations.</div><div>
</div><div>At a July meeting in San Diego, ALEC’s energy committee — which includes Mr. Duncan, the coal lobbyist who also worked closely with Mr. McConnell on his tactics — enacted a model bill designed to directly support state attorneys general who legally challenge the climate change plan. According to a person present at that July meeting, the bill would allow states to create funds, which could be funded by corporate donations, to support legal challenges to the climate change rules.</div><div>
</div><div>While it is not unusual for major corporations to sue the federal government over environmental regulations, people involved in the effort to craft a legal strategy against the climate change rules said the time, labor and coordination of the effort were unusual. That effort reflects the sweeping scope of climate change regulations, which, unless struck down in the Supreme Court, could transform huge sectors of the economy, potentially crippling the coal industry and other industrial sectors whose economic well-being relies on coal.</div><div>
</div><div>The Obama administration contends that despite the massive scale of the challenges trained against it, the climate change plan is legally sound. “The final rule is built on a rock-solid legal foundation,” said Thomas Reynolds, a spokesman for the agency.</div><div>
</div><div>“E.P.A. is using its clear authority under the Clean Air Act to set emission standards for air pollutants,” he said. “The rule is wholly consistent with the law, and we are confident it will withstand any and all legal challenges.”</div><div>
</div><div>But Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who has worked closely with the group, says that the attorneys general will not back down. “This rule was more aggressive than any of us could have imagined,” he said. “There is no lack of state attorneys general who would like to put a bullet in this thing.” The rules, a final, stricter version of a plan that the Environmental Protection Agency announced in 2012 and 2014, assigns each state a target for reducing its carbon pollution from power plants. States will be allowed to create their own plans to meet the requirements and will have to submit initial versions of their plans by 2016 and final versions by 2018.</div><div>
</div><div>The most aggressive of the regulations requires that by 2030, the nation’s existing power plants must cut emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels, which is an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation.</div><div>
</div><div>The president on Monday called the new rules a public health imperative and “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” He also sought to wrap the policy in the legitimacy of transcendental values, noting that Pope Francis issued an encyclical in June, calling action on the issue a “moral obligation.”</div><div>
</div><div>Even as Mr. Obama acknowledged the steep resistance from coal-producing states and industry critics, he said it was up to the United States to adopt tough standards so that other countries like China would feel compelled to take similar steps.</div><div>
</div><div>But Mr. McConnell made it clear he would do everything in his power to combat the rules, which he said the president had crafted because he was “tired of having to work with the Congress the people elected.”</div><div>
</div><div>“That’s why the administration is now trying to impose these deeply regressive regulations — regulations that may be illegal, that won’t meaningfully impact the global environment, and that are likely to harm middle- and lower-class Americans most — by executive fiat,” Mr. McConnell said. “It represents a triumph of blind ideology over sound policy and honest compassion,” he added.</div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/05/13110/us-chamber-commerce-local-influence-two-maps">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/05/13110/us-chamber-commerce-local-influence-two-maps</a></div><div>
</div><div>no links, great maps</div><div><div>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Local Influence in Two Maps</div><div>Submitted by Calvin Sloan on May 25, 2016 - 9:29am</div><div>
</div><div>    </div><div>
</div><div>In March of 2016, the Center for Media and Democracy exposed how a GOP polling firm is working with state chambers of commerce to defeat workplace reforms like increasing the minimum wage and paid sick leave, despite their own polling that shows that large majorities of state chamber members and CEOs are supportive of such measures.</div><div>
</div><div>That webinar was hosted by the Council of State Chambers (COSC), a little-known trade association deeply embedded in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce infrastructure that provides ostensibly-autonomous state chambers of commerce with U.S. Chamber policy directives.</div><div>
</div><div>Research released by CMD in March further documented how the policy synergy provided by groups like COSC is not the exception to the rule; it is the rule. Countless local chambers and essentially every state chamber have been captured by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s vast network of councils, government affairs conferences, training centers, executive associations, and membership clubs.</div><div>
</div><div>So how far does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s policy network extend?</div><div>
</div><div>Below is a map of the members of CCC 100, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s invite-only group of chamber executives that gather twice a year in lush resorts to attend U.S. Chamber-led policy trainings:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Since CMD’s source documents on CCC 100 range from 2011 to 2015, and contain only a handful of CCC 100 registration lists, this map is incomplete.</div><div>
</div><div>But from what information is available, it is clear that the U.S. Chamber has sought--and most of the time, has been able--to capture the policy direction of local chambers in every major city across the country.</div><div>
</div><div>Far too often in 2016 America, the local chamber is not representing local interests.</div><div>
</div><div>Donate to CMD!</div><div>Further, many local chambers are now highly partisan and transnationally interested. In soliciting CCC 100 "sponsorship opportunities," the U.S. Chamber advertises "three days of unlimited access to the nation's top chamber presidents and CEOs" to the lobbying departments of mega-corporations like Walmart, FedEx and American Express--corporate interests who prioritize shareholder profits, not community development.</div><div>
</div><div>The state chambers are in worse shape. The following map shows COSC state chamber membership:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Apart from Nevada, Utah and Wyoming, every state in the country has a COSC-affiliate.</div><div>
</div><div>These institutions are provided with legal and political expertise from the U.S. Chamber on how to operate political PACs and lobby effectively, and are forces to be reckoned with in state capitols.</div><div>
</div><div>And U.S. Chamber "expertise" is by no means benign.</div><div>
</div><div>The latest COSC conference met in wintry January at the Marco Beach Ocean Resort, where state chamber executives attended a political discussion led by the Koch-founded Freedom Partners organization, and a policy training led by a PR firm "on how best to message a free market approach to climate issues."</div><div>
</div><div>The U.S. Chamber may be infamous for being the largest lobbyist in Washington D.C.--but it is evident that the organization’s influence extends far beyond the Beltway.</div><div>
</div><div>Read the key documents about CMD's investigation of the state Chambers here.</div><div>
</div><div>- See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/05/13110/us-chamber-commerce-local-influence-two-maps#sthash.jBHhaMJD.dpuf</div></div><div>
</div><div>
<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04/13098/us-chamber-works-behind-scenes-gut-whistleblower-protections">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04/13098/us-chamber-works-behind-scenes-gut-whistleblower-protections</a>

<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Efforts to gut the federal False Claims Act backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce got a hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday. The federal push builds on previous back-door Chamber efforts through the <a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed" target="blank">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (ALEC) to discourage states from pursuing fraud claims.The False Claims Act (FCA) allows the government to recover from businesses that defraud government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and protects whistleblowers who report suspected fraud on government contracts. <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2013/12/26/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Statistics.pdf" target="blank">According to</a> the Department of Justice, cases brought under the FCA resulted in the recovery of $42 billion from 1987-2013, making it an important legal tool for deterring fraud and protecting public funds.Ensuring that contractors don't defraud the government is clearly in the public interest. Yet for a number of years, the Chamber has been targeting the FCA <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues_spec.php?id=D000019798&year=2016&spec=GOV" target="blank">through its lobbying efforts</a> and its Institute for Legal Reform, which <a href="https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/WilmerHale_Shared_Content/Files/PDFs/IRL-Fixing-The-FCA.pdf" target="blank">advocates</a> policy changes that would reduce financial penalties on many companies and make it harder for whistleblowers to report alleged misconduct.Three of the four scheduled speakers at Thursday's hearing on "<a href="http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104871" target="blank">Oversight of the False Claims Act</a>," held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, called for the FCA to be overhauled; two have clear ties to the U.S. Chamber.Larry D. Thompson of the University of Georgia School of Law advocated for "greater creativity" in ethics oversight—<a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20160428/104871/HHRG-114-JU10-Wstate-ThompsonL-20160428.pdf" target="blank">offering</a> the U.S. Chamber's proposal as an exemplar.Thompson served as Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush and <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2005-07-17/full-court-press" target="blank">was previously</a> a member of the U.S. Chamber's Board of Directors.<div id="block-inject-1" class="block-inject block-inject-1"><div id="block-block-40" class="block block-block first odd">
</div></div>Jonathan Diesenhaus, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells US LLP, <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20160428/104871/HHRG-114-JU10-Wstate-DiesenhausJ-20160428.pdf" target="blank">claimed</a> that the qui tam statute gives too much power to whistleblowers "with less than honorable intentions." Diesenhaus <a href="http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/research/the-great-myths-of-state-false-claims-acts--alternatives-to-state-qui-tam-statutes" target="blank">wrote a report</a> on state qui tam statutes and FCAs for the Chamber's ILR, and <a href="http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/legal-reform-summit/2013-agenda" target="blank">presented</a> on potential FCA "reforms" at an Institute for Legal Reform summit in 2013.<h2>U.S. Chamber Blocks State Anti-Fraud Efforts through ALEC</h2>This won't be the first time the U.S. Chamber has gotten seemingly independent sources to mouth its talking points.The Chamber has also worked through ALEC to pressure state lawmakers against strengthening state-level false claims laws, as shown in documents uncovered by Common Cause and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html?r=0" target="blank">reported on</a> by The New York Times.In 2012, a U.S. Chamber lawyer was the co-chair of ALEC's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Civil_Justice_Task_Force" target="blank">Civil Justice Task Force</a>, along with Ohio state legislator Bill Seitz. After consulting with the Chamber's representative about a <a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/April-2011/DeWine-Supports-Creation-of-Whistleblower-Protecti" target="blank">proposed False Claims Act</a> to protect whistleblowers in Ohio, Seitz <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html?r=0" target="blank">told</a> The New York Times, "he learned that the bill, as originally written, would have been 'a trial lawyer’s bonanza.'" Seitz then began drafting an ALEC-friendly model and sent a warning to a fellow state legislator about the push to increase false claims litigation."While this is understandable, as states are broke, the considered advice from our friends at ALEC was that such legislation is not well taken and should not be approved," Seitz <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html?r=0" target="blank">wrote</a>.Seitz's efforts on the Chamber's behalf did not go unnoticed. He <a href="http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/resource/ohio-state-senator-bill-seitz-receives-ilrs-state-legislative-achievement-award" target="blank">received</a> the Institute for Legal Reform's "State Legislative Achievement Award" the following year.</div></div></div>

</div><div>=4/16<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13072/chamber-commerce">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13072/chamber-commerce</a>no linksNew materials provided to the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch reveal that a top GOP polling firm instructed state Chamber of Commerce lobbyists how to try to defeat popular measures like increasing the minimum wage, despite polling data from business leaders that shows overwhelming support for such progressive workplace policies.
 California just passed a statewide measure to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next few years, as other cities have also embraced this and other key workplace reform measures, such as paid sick days.
 Read more from the Washington Post's story by Lydia DiPillis here.
 Below are key materials about this, including this short video from the webinar with analysis that CMD has prepared:Here is the link to that snippet from the webinar.
 Here is the poll, marked up by CMD.
 Here is a copy of the slideshow, marked up by CMD.
 Here is a transcript of the webinar, highlighted by CMD.
 Here is the link to the longer version of the webinar.
 Here is some information about who spoke during the webinar.
 Here is a backgrounder on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the state chambers of commerce.
 Here is CMD's press release summarizing key information about the materials.
 Here is some analysis of the polling results by CMD.
 Here is an interview on NPR's Fresh Air about the materials and the efforts to preempt local efforts to increase the minumum wage, paid sick, family leave, predictive scheduling and other popular measures. 
 Here is the long version with commentary by CMD:
 - See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13072/chamber-commerce#sthash.tUOPmlNL.dpuf--refMadison, WI--Video footage of a closed-door webinar provided to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reveals top GOP pollsters instructing Chamber of Commerce lobbyists to ignore internal survey data showing that Chamber members across the country overwhelmingly support progressive workplace policies including raising the minimum wage, providing paid sick days, and increasing paid family leave. (These and other materials are available <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13072/chamber-commerce" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>.)In the video, pollsters with LuntzGlobal, the survey research firm of noted GOP pollster Frank Luntz, coach lobbyists from state and local Chambers on how to thwart the "empathy" that Chamber members feel for their employees in order to advance an anti-worker agenda aligned with the Koch Brothers and other corporate interests."This webinar reveals just how deeply corporate interests and their lobbyists are influencing the priorities of state Chambers of Commerce, even when that agenda contradicts the opinions of their local business members," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, a national watchdog organization that monitors the hidden influence of corporate interests in politics. "Rather than listening to its members and crafting a policy agenda that reflects their priorities, Chamber lobbyists pick their policy positions behind closed doors and then figure out how to convince their members to fall in line.""It's a warped, undemocratic process, and the Chambers should be held accountable for their claims to the public, press, and elected officials that businesses oppose raising the minimum wage, paid sick leave, increased family and medical leave and other common sense policies, when in fact substantial majorities of business executives actually support these public policies," she added.During the hour-long webinar, which was hosted by the Council of State Chambers in February 2016, LuntzGlobal consultants present the results of an internal survey of 1,000 C-suite executives who are either current or prospective Chamber members. The poll finds that – contrary to the Chamber's lobbying agenda – 80 percent of current or prospective Chamber members support raising the minimum wage, 73 percent support paid sick days, 78 percent support predictive scheduling policies, 72 percent support increased maternity leave time, and 82 percent support increased paternity leave time, among other policies.In the webinar, a LuntzGlobal consultant asks about the poll findings: "So what do these results all have in common? Well quite frankly, they're all empathetic." In response, the consultants advise Council of State Chamber lobbyists on messaging and strategies to help their members get over their empathy and to undermine and change their members' views: "So what we'll try to do is actually give you a few helpful hints on how to actually combat these [workplace reform efforts and their popularity among business leaders] in your states…""With their internal polls showing that business owners and executives support raising the minimum wage by an overwhelming 80-to-8 percent, it's unconscionable that the U.S. Chamber and state chambers continue to fight the wage increases that America's workers and our economy need," said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project.In state and cities where these policies have been debated, the local Chamber is almost always in the frontlines of the local opposition, working with other local affiliates of the National Restaurant Association, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, and other corporate trade groups to slow or stop the advances of these policies.- See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04/13075/top-gop-pollster-chamber-commerce-lobbyists-poll-shows-your-members-support#sthash.LpeYhtYm.dpuf</div><div>=</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div>
</div><div>==</div></div>