STATES

LCV scorecard maps http://scorecard.lcv.org/

NO MERRI

SEE CLIMATE LAWSUITS

see local regs

see sub-national for CA, Va etc

see fang machine below

---

1 26 GMAIL

Big Oil’s coordinated lobbying efforts to secure legal immunity from climate accountability lawsuits are ramping up. State-level bills aiming to block communities from taking the fossil fuel industry to court have been introduced in Oklahoma and Utah while lobbyists continue to push Congress for a liability shield that could force the rising bill for climate change onto taxpayers and set a harmful legal precedent that protects corporations instead of communities.

Communities across the country are coming together for a national Week of Action to Make Polluters Pay. During the week of January 26, communities will gather in the streets, coordinate letter writing campaigns, and raise attention to Big Oil’s push for legal immunity. See what events are happening near you. If you live in Minnesota or Washington State, you can also sign your state’s petition demanding No Immunity for Big Oil.

Upcoming bills in New York and Hawaiʻi would empower the states to sue Big Oil for fueling the insurance crisis. As climate-related extreme weather triggers higher insurance premiums across the country, states are looking to make the fossil fuel industry — not everyday Americans — pay for the climate damage they knowingly fueled for decades.

“Shouldn’t the entities that caused climate change contribute? Why do residents have to foot the whole bill for the situation we’re now in when they did not profit off it the way the polluters did?”

Hawaiʻi state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole

Climate change has reduced U.S. incomes by 12% since 2000, a new study finds. Climate chaos — fueled by decades of Big Oil deception — has caused nationwide delays and disruptions to production and trade, leading to significant income loss.

CCI January 15, 2026

Confirmed: Big Oil lobbyists want to kill climate accountability lawsuits | Center for Climate Integrity

Big Oil and its allies have spent the past year quietly building a campaign urging Congress to give fossil fuel companies total legal immunity from the growing wave of climate deception lawsuits filed by communities demanding accountability for their climate lies. As of this week, they’re saying the quiet part out loud.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the nation’s largest oil and gas trade association, said this week that one of its top 2026 priorities is to stop “state climate lawsuits.”

In his speech at its annual State of American Energy event, API President and CEO Mike Sommers claimed that the U.S. has reached “public consensus” on the need for increased oil production that is currently being “blocked by red tape, delay and endless lawsuits.”

The declaration comes after numerous news outlets have reported that the fossil fuel industry has been lobbying Congress for immunity from climate accountability lawsuits filed by 11 attorneys general and dozens of municipal and tribal governments across the U.S. While Big Oil defendants have been fighting to block and delay the cases at every turn, lawsuits from communities across the country continue to move through the courts and closer to discovery and trial.

“Big Oil is openly asking Congress for a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card because fossil fuel companies are desperate to avoid facing the evidence of their climate lies in court,” CCI President Richard Wiles said in response to API’s priorities. “Congress must make clear that any proposal to strip Americans of their right to hold corporations accountable for the damage they cause when they lie to the public about the harms of their products will be dead on arrival.”

Big Oil’s push to put itself above the law is already in the works. Last year, 16 Republican attorneys general proposed creating a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies modeled on a 2005 law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and state-level immunity bills for the fossil fuel industry have already been introduced this year in Utah and Oklahoma.

These efforts are not without pushback. A Congressional appropriations bill introduced last year originally included language that would prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims,” clearly targeting D.C.’s ongoing climate accountability lawsuit against ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and other oil majors. However, the latest version of the bill no longer includes the restrictive language that aimed to bar D.C. communities from accessing the courts.

“I think anyone in America who breathes the air around them and also believes in corporate accountability ought to be very concerned about these types of end-runs against accountability,” Jay Inslee, the former governor of Washington state, told *The Guardian.

---

see state pre-emption

colorado cities sues too

https://www.drillednews.com/post/as-more-communities-sue-for-climate-damages-state-houses-consider-bills-to-stop-them

drilled

As More Communities Sue for Climate Damages, State Houses Consider Bills to Stop Them

Proposed legislation in Kansas, backed by a top business lobby, could make it harder for local communities to sue fossil fuel corporations.

see ALEC, SPN, state thinktanks

increasingly there are two americas,red and blue states, despite BO's famous speech; in some ways the South won the civil war, eventually. Southern strategy by Nixon after racist Dixiecrats defected to gop (they had set up anti-commie freedom schools to avoid desegregation). GOP is making it harder to vote, gerrymander to make minority vote less important, attacking unions and green.

The increasing polarysis and expense of attack ads in federal elections (driven up by CU tsunami of cash), RWI are looking at state level candidates, and even local. This may have begun with Rove judicial elections in Texas, later GA etc; AG scandal was attempt to purge those who would not do ideological will vs law; JCN/RAGA now working to elect, eg CO which was hard fought by ATI, much local resistance on local vs corp rights.

STATE LEVEL OPS:

cmd

Stephen Moore, Trump’s recent appointment to the Federal Reserve Board, has served as the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) leading voice for austerity and anti-labor policies for over a decade.

ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where legislators and corporate lobbyists meet behind closed doors to establish policies on issues that affect our lives, such as the environment, energy policy, and workers’ issues. Moore currently serves on ALEC’s “Private Enterprise Advisory Council” and the Board of Scholars. Since at least 2009, Moore has regularly attended the meetings where corporations script state policy.

Moore’s most well-known work with ALEC, “Rich States, Poor States” (RSPS), is one of the flagship documents supporting a conservative agenda in the states. For twelve years, Moore has co-authored the report, which serves as ALEC’s state scorecard for Koch-backed policies aimed at reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations and suppressing wages.

ALEC’s RSPS report “provides a recipe for economic inequality, wage suppression, and stagnant incomes,” as well as for austerity for public infrastructure and education systems which “are the true foundations of long term economic growth and shared prosperity,” wrote economist Peter Fisher in a joint Good Jobs First and Iowa Policy Project report.

Moore now faces confirmation by the US Senate, which is expected to be a turbulent process, as he is widely considered unqualified to hold a position that would make him one of America’s most powerful officials for economic policy.

Ties to The American Legislative Exchange Council

Moore has spoken at ALEC conferences every year since at least 2013. He was a featured speaker at ALEC’s; a keynote speaker at the; he “talked ideas and policy” at the; he had a “terrific time with dedicated state legislators” at an ALEC event in 2016; was on an ALEC panel in 2017 and promoted coal at the 2018 ALEC conference and answered questions about RSPS on a panel.

ALEC Moore is one of the “most well-respected free-market economists in America,” while Moore states “it is a great privilege” to be associated with ALEC. “Don’t you just know we are doing the right thing at ALEC, when we have these lunatics protesting against what we are doing?” Moore once said, presumably speaking of the multiple workers’ rights and environmental rights groups that protested the in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Moore’s speaking engagements have predominantly focused on RSPS, which ALEC calls its “economic outlook of states.” Moore is frequently called to ALEC meetings to discuss the yearly report he and his co-authors — ALEC Chief Economist Jonathan Williams and Reagan-alum economist Dr. Arthur B. Laffer — research together.

Expert Reviews of Rich States, Poor States

ALEC’s flagship report has been derided by experts as “silly,” “highly misleading,” and the “gold standard in bogus economic policy claims.” As the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reported in 2015, RSPC “slaps a fresh coat of paint on the flawed fiscal and economic austerity policies favored by the group and its corporate patrons.”

Menzie Chinn, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, reviewed ALEC’s RSPS reports and concluded that the data did not back-up ALEC’s claims. The “bottom line,” according to Chinn’s findings, is that the ALEC rankings are “not correlated with real [gross state product] growth, either short term or media term.”

Chinn told CMD that the conclusions of the 2015 econometric assessment are still likely true today and that he agrees with the conclusions of Good Jobs First and the Iowa Policy Project in their 2012 report on ALEC’s deeply flawed methodology. According to that report, “Selling Snake Oil to the States,” ALEC’s RSPS “consistently ignores decades of published research making broad, unsubstantiated claims and often using anecdotes or spurious two-factor correlations that fail to control for obviously relevant factors.” RSPS relies on a “methodologically primitive analysis that any student taking Statistics 101 would be taught to avoid,” the report concluded.

Moore often uses migration numbers as people “voting with their feet” as evidence for their economic policy preferences. But Chinn says that this method of analysis is fraught as it does not control for many factors at play. Marshall Steinbaum, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, called Moore’s premise of people moving from blue states to red states .”

RSPS “embodies the policy agenda that ALEC pushes to state legislators” according to the Iowa Policy Project’s “Grading of the States.” That site was created by Fisher, an economist who is currently the Research Director at Iowa Policy Project, to cover business climate rankings. Grading of the States says despite ALEC’s claims that “these policies promote economic growth and prosperity, the evidence shows otherwise.”

Kansas is one data point of the evidence Grading of the States mentions. As CMD reported in 2016, ALEC-backed policies in Kansas have resulted in a widening of the income inequality gap “by shifting income to the state’s wealthiest taxpayers and corporations, while suppressing wages and cutting services for the middle class, low-income children, and veterans.”

Moore’s Background

Despite praise from ALEC claiming “no one is more qualified than Stephen Moore for this position,” Stephen Moore would be alone on the Federal Reserve Board as the only member without a doctorate degree. Moore has never worked within academia. And, as pointed out by Chinn, Moore has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Instead, Moore has climbed the ranks within conservative think-tanks and political groups. He founded Club for Growth, and has worked as a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a senior economic contributor at FreedomWorks, a board member of the Donors Capital Fund, a research director for President Ronald Reagan’s Commission on Privatization, and with many other right-wing organizations.

“Stephen Moore is little more than a fairly inept polemicist. I’ve never seen anything written by him that could be construed as ‘research’ in an academic/policy sense,” Chinn told CMD. Pointing at his lack of a doctorate in the field, Chinn opined, “perhaps he has an excuse, given his limited economics training,” but Moore’s “use of incorrect or outdated data suggests deeper issues.”

Economists Say Moore Is Not Qualified

Moore “is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad pick. He hasn’t gotten a thing right in twenty years,” Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, tweeted.

Wolfers is not alone. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush and is considered a “leading Republican economist,” said Moore “does not have the intellectual gravitas for this important job.”

Moore himself said, “I’m kind of new to this game, frankly, so I’m going to be on a steep learning curve myself about how the Fed operates, how the Federal Reserve makes its decisions,” according to Bloomberg. “It’s hard for me to say even what my role will be there, assuming I get confirmed.”

Trump also recently appointed “former pizza magnate turned failed Republican presidential candidate” Herman Cain to the Fed. However, according to ABC News, Cain is expected to withdraw his name from consideration in the coming days after four GOP senators indicated they would not vote to confirm him. The next step in the confirmation process is vetting from the Senate Committee on Banking, chaired by Idaho Republican Mike Crapo.

remember federal overreach prutt BS on XO? now feds fight blue states on green issues eg NY CA:

icn 419

President Donald Trump is seeking to boost domestic fossil fuels production over the objections of Democrats and environmentalistsconcerned about pollution and climate change. On Wednesday he issued a pair of executive orders targeting the power of states to delay energy projects.

“We started working on it in advance, so we hope to have something out soon,”EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in an interview. He was unable to provide a precise timeline.

Based on Trump’s orders, Wheeler’s EPA has been tasked with clarifying a section of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has allowed states like New York and Washington to delay projects in recent years....

Honoring Reconstruction's legacy: Empowering local communities

After former Confederate states drafted progressive constitutions that allowed black men to hold office for the first time, there was violent resistance to black power at the local level. During the Jim Crow era, legislatures rewrote those constitutions to give themselves broad power to override local governments. (9/26/2018)

Upending an aristocratic system

Some of the Reconstruction constitutions drafted a century-and-a-half ago set up new local government systems to supplant the aristocratic, county-based systems that enforced the harsh rules of slave society. The drafters of the 1868 North Carolina Constitution sought to replace the county system, centered on protecting private property, with "local democratic participation geared toward gathering the community together to make progress together," as Harvard Law professor Daniel Farbman wrote.

Under Article VII of North Carolina's Reconstruction constitution, each county would be divided into townships, which were intended to undermine the county governments dominated by wealthy landowners. Farbman described the theory behind the change: "Townships create political engagement, which forms new political communities, which, in turn, train citizens in the arts of self-government and create the circumstances for economic and cultural progress."

In "A Nation Under Our Feet," Hahn describes the base of black political power that developed in Warren County, North Carolina, and "withstood the full onslaught" of the so-called "redeemers" fighting to maintain the antebellum system. Hahn said this may have set the conditions for economic progress for free black people, noting that one-third of black farmers in the county worked their own land by 1900.

But conservatives opposed the township system and campaigned to end it with appeals to racism and fear of "Negro rule." In 1876, constitutional amendments restored to the North Carolina legislature much of the power it had lost in 1868, including the power to remove and replace elected local governments. In his history of the North Carolina Constitution, John Orth said the amendment allowing the legislature to remove elected local officials was targeted at the counties in the eastern part of the state, where blacks were the majority.

Preempting cities today

A similar story played out in Alabama, where constitutional amendments adopted at the end of Reconstruction severely limited local government authority. An entirely new constitution was adopted in 1901 with the express purpose of "establish[ing] white supremacy in this state," and it gave the legislature virtually unlimited power over municipalities.

A federal appeals court recently took note of this history when it struck down a 2016 Alabama law banning local minimum wage increases for violating the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. In 2015, Birmingham enacted an ordinance requiring its workers to be paid at least $10.10 per hour, but the wage increase lasted only one day. The legislature swiftly passed a law preempting local minimum wage ordinances. The NAACP, its allies, and a group of fast food workers filed suit over the preemption law.

In its ruling in the case, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted the disparate impact of a law that "immediately denied a significant wage increase to roughly 40,000 Birmingham residents, the vast majority of whom were black." The court also pointed to the problematic racial dynamics surrounding the law's passage: The preemption bill was introduced by a legislator from a Birmingham suburb where only 1.5 percent of residents are black; it was cosponsored by 52 legislators, all of them white; and it was enacted despite every black legislator voting against it.

The 11th Circuit rejected the argument that further proof of discriminatory intent was required. "Today, racism is no longer pledged from the portico of the capitol or exclaimed from the floor of the constitutional convention; it hides, abashed, cloaked beneath ostensibly neutral laws," the decision stated.

North Carolina legislators also have constitutional authority to preempt local laws, and in 2015 they exercised this power in House Bill 2, the notorious anti-transgender rights bill. In addition to requiring transgender people to use restrooms that don't conform to their gender identities, H.B. 2 was also a preemption bill that banned local minimum wage and civil rights ordinances.

Today, nearly every Southern state has preempted local minimum wage increases. These laws have been passed in response to recent efforts by big cities, which include more non-white residents, to increase wages for the lowest paid workers.

[maP MIN WAGE FORBID] A 2016 article in the American Prospect noted that the rise in laws limiting local authority came "as Republicans have captured an unprecedented number of state legislatures and as cities have become hotbeds for progressive organizing." The American Legislative Exchange Council, which promotes corporate interests in statehouses, even offers model preemption legislation.

Southern state legislatures have preempted local ordinances designed to protect the environment, workers, immigrants, consumers, and others. The Partnership for Working Families, a national network of racial and economic justice advocates, observes that "preemption legislation is often passed by predominantly white legislatures blocking laws benefiting and supported by majority communities of color."

The crucial role of state courts

Though most state constitutions give legislatures broad authority over local governments, laws that limit local government authority can sometimes violate state constitutions. The Florida Supreme Court, for example, will soon hear a lawsuit over a local minimum wage ordinance in Miami Beach.

That state's 1868 constitutional convention was dominated by more conservative factions, and its Reconstruction constitution gave state legislators broad power over local government. The Florida legislature has not hesitated to use this power, such as in 2003, when it passed a law barring cities and counties from increasing the local minimum wage. The following year, voters responded by amending the state constitution to allow local governments to do so.

The city of Miami Beach, where an earlier attempted wage increase had prompted the 2003 preemption law, then increased its minimum wage to $13.31 per hour. The Florida Chamber of Commerce and its allies sued the city, arguing that the preemption law remained in force. A lower court agreed, but the state Supreme Court has decided to hear the case.

As these legal battles between cities and states play out, special interests backed by corporate money have tried to influence who sits on the courts that define the scope of local authority. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, for example, has supported attempts to allow the Republican governor to pack state courts.

And it's not just Florida: In North Carolina, the state Chamber has spent millions of dollars in recent years to elect its preferred legislators and judges. And the Arkansas Supreme Court, whose recent elections have been dominated by national conservative groups that don't disclose their donors, last year struck down a local civil rights law protecting LGBTQ people.

"State officials are trying to overrule the will of the voters, and ban local communities from doing the right thing and protecting their LGBT residents from discrimination," said Holly Dickson, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas, which defended the ordinance.

(This is the second story in a series on the legacy of progressive Southern constitutions that were rewritten during Radical Reconstruction. To read the first, on the freedom to vote, click here.)

Schwarzenegger Unveils Legislative 'Blueprint' to Challenge Trump on Climate

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump's anti-climate polices, helped launch a comprehensive online database today to help local and state lawmakers advance environmental legislation.

"I'm pumped to unveil the Environmental Digital Legislative Handbook today, a resource for legislators around the country to find the blueprints on policies for energy efficiency, reducing pollution, recycling—you name it," Schwarzenegger announced on Facebook.

According to POLITICO, the website contains an extensive collection of legal and legislative research, voting records, and bill language and data to assist legislators in preparing bills on a vast range of environmental issues.

"There's no reason why we shouldn't have a digital legislative handbook—and make it available to people who wanted to create environmental action now—because of the situation with Trump,'' Schwarzenegger told POLITICO. "With his decision on the Paris agreement, it is even more so important to make this information available because it shows the kinds of wonderful things states can do without waiting for the federal government."

"The message to legislators with the project is now 'you have the power to do it yourselves,''' he added. "The reality is each state now goes to work and passes great legislation that helps them ... make great decisions."

The initiative is an joint effort of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute and the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators.

"We hope to assist legislators who are interested in advancing smart environmental policies by sharing best practices and actual legislation that is working successfully in a number of states already," the website states. "Governor Schwarzenegger has long insisted that voters aren't interested in Republican air or Democrat air but instead simply want clean air. That belief has guided our thought process when choosing the legislation to include in this database"

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has emerged as a prominent environmentalist and renewable energyproponent. Last month, he threw his weight behind an extension of California's cap-and-trade program signed by his successor, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.

During remarks, the former action star criticized Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement.

...

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/28/headlines/report_finds_surge_in_dark_money_at_state_and_local_level

A new report has found a surge in the use of dark money donations at the state and local levels. The Brennan Center finds secret spending at the local level increased in recent years, in part because of so-called gray money from organizations funneling money through other groups in order to conceal where it’s coming from. Examples of local spending on races include "Mining companies secretly targeting a legislator who opposed permits. Food companies battling a ballot measure to add labeling requirements. Payday lenders supporting an attorney general who promised to shield them from regulation." Because of the lower cost of state and local elections, such donations can have an even bigger impact.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-26/secret-campaign-cash-gushes-into-u-s-state-and-local-elections

Secret campaign cash from groups that aren’t supposed to coordinate with candidates has over recent election cycles poured into state and local races where the impact can be much greater than at the federal level, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

The New York-based nonprofit law and policy institute researched spending by outside groups in six states between 2006 and 2014. Instances in which donors could be clearly identified fell to 29 percent from 76 percent on average after a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited and anonymous spending, according to the study released Sunday, billed as the first of its kind.

So-called dark money is more likely to be tied to a specific benefit for contributors at the state and local levels than in federal elections, the report said. Donations, for instance, may influence the selection of a regulator or the passage of a ballot measure affecting a company’s bottom line, and they can have a greater impact on the outcomes by dominating total spending in low-cost races.

“The problem is not that dark money will flood every state and local election or even most,” the Brennan Center report said. “It’s that dark money is most likely to turn up where the stakes are particularly valuable, in amounts that could make all the difference in persuading voters.”

Cash Fountain

The Citizens United decision allowed as free speech unlimited spending by corporations, labor unions, and the wealthy, often through super political action committees that are technically independent from candidates and must reveal their contributors. Yet it also led to increasing contributions to non-profit groups that spend money on campaigns even though their primary purpose isn’t supposed to be politics. And they don’t have to disclose their donors.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money have been spent to influence federal elections, and the same phenomenon is happening at the state and local levels, the researchers said. Dark-money spending rose 34 percent at the federal level between 2006 and 2014 and 38 percent during that time in the states examined, the study found.

“There’s just less scrutiny of what’s going on in state and local elections,” said Chisun Lee, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center and one of the report’s authors.

In the 2012 race for Utah attorney general, for example, a state legislative committee determined that payday-loan companies worked with Republican John Swallow’s campaign to use generic-sounding PACs such as “Now or Never” and secret nonprofit spending to obscure about $450,000 in donations for election ads seeking protection from new consumer-rights rules, the study said.

In Wisconsin, an out-of-state mining company secretly put $700,000 into ads attacking legislators who opposed speeding mine permits, according to the report. The company gave money to one non-profit organization that contributed to a second non-profit that ran the ads, and the company’s role surfaced only through an unrelated court case, the report said.

Gray Fog

Working with the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan organization in Helena, Montana, that compiles campaign data, Brennan Center researchers identified states where it was possible to track all spending for elections in 2006, 2010, and 2014. Only nine met the criteria for the study, and analysts chose to look at Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, and Massachusetts.

Researchers tracked dark money -- donations to non-profits that don’t have to be revealed -- as well as what they dubbed “gray money”: contributions to super-PACs whose sources are difficult or impossible to identify because they are made in the name of other PACs or by non-profits. The amount of gray money in the states examined increased to almost 60 percent in 2014 from 15 percent in 2006, the study found.

Secret spending often flows from donors who have a direct economic stake in lower-level elections, making them easier to dominate, the report found. Researchers examined court cases and other investigations in states where the secret donors to dark-money groups were revealed to show the influence of the spending.

“There’s good reason not to want folks to know who’s behind the spending,” said Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program.

While there’s been little action on the federal level to require more disclosure, efforts at the state level can make a difference, the researchers said. In California, which had the most outside spending of the six states examined, stricter disclosure laws meant a low amount of dark money, the report said.

The study makes recommendations, including requiring disclosure by all groups that spend a substantial amount on politics, extending disclosure to organizations that donate to other groups, and naming the people in charge of spending entities with opaque titles, while also making reasonable accommodations for spenders.

“There is more realistic hope of change at the state and certainly city level,” said the Brennan Center’s Lee.

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/secret-spending-states

...

There are several reasons to be particularly concerned about the corrosive effects of dark and gray money at the state and local levels. First, regulatory power at these levels is more concentrated, and more often subject to direct election, than at the federal level. From attorney general to comptroller to water district director, numerous state and local elected offices are capable of directly impacting special interests’ bottom lines. Also distinct from the federal level, voters in every state and innumerable counties and towns face ballot measures where they directly decide policy questions — education spending, collective bargaining, taxes — often with major financial consequences for a relatively small but economically powerful constituency.

Second, these are often low-information elections, where it may not take much advertising to sway voters. This is particularly true in nonpartisan contests, such as ballot measure elections and many local races, where voters do not have party affiliations as a signal. In such cases, special interest spenders can hope to have a greater influence on voters than in high-profile elections featuring many voices.

Finally, lower costs make it relatively easy for dark and gray money to flood state and local elections with unaccountable messages. Entities with deceptively community-minded names — Californians for Good Schools and Good Jobs, shielding a Texas oil company;

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/see-how-citizens-united-hurting-democracy-look-local-elections

Proper Role of Government Education Association, shielding payday lenders — can invest relatively modest amounts but still saturate the airwaves and mailboxes. How can this problem be fixed? One way would be to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn misguided decisions such as Citizens United, which empowered donors to funnel unlimited amounts of spending through opaque entities such as social welfare nonprofits and shell companies. Short of that, this report offers a set of practical reforms to improve electoral transparency while protecting truly vulnerable speakers. Though reform at the federal level has stagnated because of inaction at the Federal Election Commission, Internal Revenue Service, and Congress, a number of states and cities have been more eager and able to respond to recent onslaughts of dark money.

CoC 3

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/05/13110/us-chamber-commerce-local-influence-two-maps

no links, great maps

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Local Influence in Two Maps

Submitted by Calvin Sloan on May 25, 2016 - 9:29am

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.

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.

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.

So how far does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s policy network extend?

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:...

5/16 alec summit CPP, see also team Red AG

ALEC model bills opposing the Clean Power Plan include:

The State Power Accountability and Reliability Charter (SPARC), would effectively block states from complying with the Clean Power Plan, by disallowing essential pollution reduction tools such as requiring energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy. The nation's largest privately-held coal company in the world, Peabody Energy, promoted this model bill to ALEC at its July 2015 Annual Meeting, where it was adopted.
The Act Requiring Approval of State Plan to Implement EPA's Carbon Guidelines, adopted by ALEC in December 2015, would require state legislators to affirmatively vote to approve a state plan to reduce carbon pollution before it is sent to the EPA, causing more delay and politicization.
The Reliable, Affordable and Safe Power (RASP) Act would block the use of state funds to comply with the requirements of the Clean Power Plan, mirroring the "just say no" approach advocated by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The model legislation was developed and promoted by David Koch's Americans for Prosperity, and discussed at ALEC's December 2015 meeting, although not yet approved by the board.
ALEC has also adopted and promoted numerous resolutions opposing the Clean Power Plan, including: the Resolution Concerning EPA's Proposed Guidelines for Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants and the Resolution in Response to EPA's Plan to Regulate Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.
The Environmental Impact Litigation Act, adopted by ALEC in September 2015, would establish a "slush fund" financed by gifts from corporations and individuals to be used to pay for state litigation against the Clean Power Plan and other environmental protections. It would also create a board to control the fund including representatives from "energy trade associations."

Other Elements of ALEC's Anti-Environment Agenda:

The Electricity Freedom Act would repeal individual state requirements for utilities to generate a proportion of the energy they produce from renewableenergy sources.
The misleadingly-named "Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act" would allow oil and natural gas companies to keep details about chemicals they pump into the ground during the fracking process secret. The bill was brought to ALEC by the America's lead fracking corporation, ExxonMobil, one of the largest companies in the world.
The Environmental Literacy Improvement Act would require that educators teach students about issues such as climate change from "a range of perspectives."Although climate change is not a scientifically disputed fact (with 97% consensus), the bill would require that students be taught "countervailing scientific and economic views."
The Disposal and Taxation of Public Lands Act is one of several ALEC model bills that would ostensibly allow states to take control of and then sell federal lands to corporations for the extraction of coal, oil, and gas—or other corporate interests.
The Updating Net Metering Policies Resolution would increase costs for energy users who generate their own electricity through solar panels at their home or business. An ALEC staffer described home solar users to the media as "free riders on the system."
The State Withdrawal from Regional Climate Initiatives would withdraw a state from regional efforts to lower carbon pollution.
The Resolution to Retain State Authority Over Coal Ash as Non-Hazardous Waste asserts that states should have jurisdiction over regulating coal ash pollution, rather than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Blocking local environmental laws. ALEC has also sought to undermine local efforts to protect our environment.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/11/19279/amid-federal-gridlock-lobbying-rises-states

The biosimilar campaign is just one example of the wide-reaching power of state-level lobbying — a power that’s grown as Congress stalemates and federal lobbying declines.

More companies and interest groups are pushing their agendas in the states, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of five years of lobbyist registrations from all 50 states gathered by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Since 2010, the number of entities with either in-house lobbyists or part-time hired guns working in the states has grown more than 10 percent.

That means, on average, every state lawmaker was outnumbered by six companies, trade associations, unions or other groups angling for their attention from 2010 to 2014.

graphic:

Conservative and Progressive Trans-State Policy Networks

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn-visual-hertel-fernandez-and-skocpol-on-trans-state-policy-networks.pdf

right wins

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/5-most-dangerous-states-live-and-5-safest

According to the study, the five safest states to live in are Massachusetts, Vermont, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Hawaii.The least safe states to live in are New Mexico, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Mississippi. Massachusetts is the state with the lowest share of residents who lack health insurance, the second fewest number of fatal occupational injuries, and the second lowest rate of fatal automobile accidents.

Other notable findings include the fact that Maine has the lowest rate of assault, Oklahoma has the highest estimated property losses from climate disasters, and the highest share of residents without health insurance belongs to Texas. North Dakota, which has experienced a massive fracking boom in recent years, has the highest rate of fatal workplace injuries.

The District of Columbia has the highest number of law enforcement employees, but the highest number of assaults. The number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters per 100,000 residents is 12 times higher in DC than in Iowa and the number of thefts per 100,000 residents is three times higher than Idaho.

You can read the report here.

QUALITY OF LIFE RANKINGS

...

But these numbers provide only a partial view of how people are faring. Human development is defined as the process of enlarging people’s freedoms and opportunities and improving their well-being. The Human Development Index is an alternative to the market’s money metrics and instead measures the real freedom ordinary people have to decide who to be, what to do, and how to live in their prospective states.

The first Human Development Index was launched in 1990 by the United Nations and was the brainchild of Indian economist Amartya Sen and Pakistani economist Mahbub Haq. It has been an annual feature of every Human Development Report since, ranking virtually every country in the world from number one (currently Iceland) to 177 (currently Sierra Leone).

This is where we fare in the Measure of America.

In the heat map that ranks U.S. states on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being a high level of well being, Democratic or so called ‘blue states’ dominate on the end of the scale while Republican strongholds rank the lowest.

The best state in the union? Connecticut, of course. When you’re the world’s headquarters to hedge fund traders, the wealth gets spread around. The state ranks 6.17. When considering education levels, 20% have just a bachelor’s degrees and 15% have advanced degrees. At least 53% graduated high school. And only 11.4% did not, which for the richest state in the country is still high, though the number includes much older generations and immigrants. Average life expectancy is 80.8 years old 81.8% of the state’s school aged population (3-24) are in school. Democrats control the joint.

On the low end of the scale it’s Mississippi. They rank just 3.81 out of 10 with an average life expectancy of 75, 76% of the student aged population (3-24) are in school and only 12% with a bachelor’s degree. Just 7% of the state have advanced degrees and 19% have less than a high school education. That state is run by Republicans except for one Democrat in the House of Representatives.

The highest ranking state south of Mason Dixon is Florida, with an index score of 4.82.

See the heat map here.

Not all blue states are rolling in the well-being. Michigan is the stand-out at 4.76 on the index. The state has a Republican governor and a mixed representation in the House, but the Senate is still blue. Neither party inWashington or in the state itself has been able to improve the quality of life in the state as Detroit’s auto labor woes continue.

The state saw the greatest decline in human development over the past decade and is the only U.S. state

whose 2010 Human Development Index score is lower than its 2000 score.

Other Key Findings

....http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/06/19/red-states-rank-low-on-u-s-human-development-index/print/

forbes: utah (empl) HI, wyo, CO, Minn; WV last, MI Ohio not good

oecd red states http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/06/19/red-states-rank-low-on-u-s-human-development-index/

cnbc qual life: 10 wash, 9 NH, 8 OR, 7 SD ND 6, Maine Neb (low crime ) 3 Minne, Vt HI (ranks last in biz, // CA?)

cnbc on biz (#1 google result on q of life)

"We scored all 50 states on 51 measures of competitiveness developed with input from business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness. States received points based on their rankings in each metric. Then, we separated those metrics into ten broad categories, weighting the categories based on how frequently they are cited in state economic development marketing materials. That way, our study ranks the states based on the criteria they use to sell themselves.

▼Overall Rank	▼State	▼Cost of Doing Business	▼Economy	▼Infrastructure	▼Workforce	▼Quality of Life	▼Technology & Innovation	▼Business Friendliness	▼Education	▼Cost of Living	▼Access to Capital
1	South Dakota	1	6	19	11	7	48	2	30	26	39
2	Texas	35	1	1	11	41	2	20	10	9	3
3	North Dakota	12	2	2	8	5	46	6	36	30	29
4	Nebraska	10	4	16	23	4	36	3	30	5	39
5	Utah	21	10	21	19	21	23	4	39	11	7
5	Virginia	38	10	21	6	18	12	6	8	20	13
7	Colorado	37	7	23	10	15	8	17	15	32	11
8	Georgia	28	19	18	1	32	17	14	8	14	5
9	Wyoming	9	15	9	16	11	47	8	20	27	39
10	Idaho	7	31	20	14	16	37	5	33	3	39
11	Iowa	13	5	28	40	14	30	9	15	16	31
12	North Carolina	32	13	31	3	30	10	18	15	20	15
13	Tennessee	14	9	2	5	49	25	18	45	2	27
14	Kansas	27	21	4	17	24	29	12	15	7	35
15	Minnesota	39	10	8	32	3	18	15	23	34	17
16	Massachusetts	47	3	40	28	13	7	21	7	43	1
17	Oregon	36	16	13	39	8	14	25	26	38	11
18	Indiana	26	32	5	27	39	24	10	13	6	25
19	Montana	5	19	12	34	12	40	43	23	30	39
20	Arizona	31	43	10	2	29	19	16	49	35	33
21	Washington	44	24	31	24	10	4	23	28	36	7
22	Wisconsin	28	34	17	40	19	19	24	13	28	21
23	South Carolina	8	35	15	9	41	26	34	36	19	19
24	Arkansas	4	18	34	7	40	38	43	15	7	37
25	Oklahoma	2	24	25	25	45	35	28	48	1	37
26	Missouri	19	17	5	48	47	22	29	20	11	23
27	New Hampshire	18	43	45	33	9	27	13	2	40	15
28	Ohio	23	22	11	47	44	16	33	12	14	17
29	Michigan	33	26	25	15	43	12	32	32	18	23
30	Florida	40	38	29	4	28	11	35	28	29	27
31	Delaware	24	27	39	30	34	39	1	34	37	14
32	Vermont	22	8	48	49	2	40	31	11	41	31
33	Alabama	6	40	27	25	45	34	37	36	13	39
33	New Mexico	15	30	23	38	26	32	47	46	25	29
35	New York	49	14	42	45	22	1	30	2	47	3
36	Kentucky	17	42	14	31	38	31	37	43	3	39
37	Illinois	44	45	5	29	30	5	36	22	23	25
38	Maine	16	46	44	43	5	32	27	27	39	33
39	Pennsylvania	44	29	33	44	33	5	41	6	33	5
40	Maryland	41	33	46	20	25	9	45	2	42	9
41	Mississippi	3	47	36	18	37	44	49	47	10	39
42	New Jersey	42	48	43	21	23	15	41	1	46	9
43	Louisiana	10	35	41	22	50	28	39	40	20	35
44	Alaska	25	23	38	36	35	50	10	35	49	39
45	Connecticut	43	39	49	37	17	21	26	5	48	19
46	Nevada	30	50	30	13	47	42	22	50	17	39
47	California	50	35	34	34	27	2	48	43	45	1
48	West Virginia	19	27	37	50	36	49	50	42	24	39
49	Rhode Island	34	49	47	42	20	42	46	23	44	21
50	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii	Hawaii

Table 1. Top 10 states with net “imports” of state political money

STATE	Contributors	Recipients	Recipients/ Contributors
North Dakota	$24,243,077	$45,284,156	1.87
Maine	$112,536,318	$173,607,299	1.54
South Dakota	$49,372,855	$75,888,896	1.54
Montana	$61,282,109	$88,268,945	1.44
New Mexico	$111,394,177	$154,775,175	1.39
New Hampshire	$75,639,266	$102,909,133	1.36
Maryland	$243,463,685	$316,262,590	1.30
Vermont	$23,985,246	$30,994,152	1.29
Iowa	$224,365,535	$289,619,127	1.29
Oregon	$376,429,773	$482,517,168	1.28
West Virginia	$89,761,813	$114,793,897	1.28
Ohio	$934,330,983	$1,193,104,671	1.28

fang machine 2013

ch 5 states

big loss 2008 fed so shift to state level; already had fair no. of gov and legis, plus bunch of rw fronts built over decades; ~ BO, and his win fuelled 197; no new ideas, but footsoldiers for rw agenda; would localize msg ~ eg ACA

muscle to go on offense: immigration AZ, unions 198

SPN 1992 (BC) planned by defunct Madison group: Th Roe (heritage) So Caro Policy Cncl eg vouchers, ~ grn regs; go between local conserv eg Family Policy Cncl // Dobson evangelicals and nat'l rw ctrs 199/

mid 90's 37 spn, // Heritage Mandate (plan plus staffers) so new gov or legislature (often part time latter) had ready made plan and ppl (p200) really gop but kinda look nonpart; have boilerplate to ward off pseudo/stinktank charge: IRS bless, we don't take bribes, advance "civil society" 201 so ironically confirms rubberstamp

DCI entwines

SPN funded Pelican, ~ dem 4k$ conf of mayors and inaug, but silent on jindal 45K$ tax for helo campaign trips p202; Laffer, Vitter, james o'keefe

now 58 tanks, every state: CA official pac res, but affiliate Claremont, horowitz, indep inst oakland, Reason, prometheus 203

SPN media savvy, so connect to local media, (90's colo independent inst had cable news show, and VT ethan a inst had regular npr op-ed) has radio shows (web? sirius?), bogs, podcast 205.

now oppos res masked as jrnl: Jason Stverak, pres frkln ctr, ex N Dak gop honcho), stealth camp for SAM (erick O'k w/ h rich $) 206

Bill McMorris invest jrnl at fkl ctr, Robt Novak fellowship from Phillips 2 L to pay him 206

spn? put up 75K for alaska reporter gig; Wayne Hoffman ID challenged to find bias 207

Illinois Statehouse News denied creds b/c wd not disclose $, couple others states deny also;

scam phantom district on stimulus zip code error; but drudge, politico then ABC 208 (then weeks on Fox)

rep Mary fallin denounced; // fnk ctr w/ McCain and Coburn did report, but either not stim, or mischaracterized eg WNBA facility was tribal community ctr w/ no for-profit anything 208.

b/c real reporters laid off, easy to grab for cred; eg Mackinac created mich Transparency Cter [fe] then hired local nbc kathy hoekstra eg on film tax credit for m moore 209; OC reg --? pac res CalWatchDog; pres soc prof jrnl --> tenn ctr pol res [gore hit?]; assoc of am phys and surgeons ~ ACA but not shown nuts: BO covert hypnosis to get ppl to rally, medicare ~ const; cited alex jones V? BO cia spy 209

local news desperate: in WI 18 pprs syndicate the franklin front 210

FC pledge to build out; partner w/ Nat Rev on battlegnd elections (in 2014?); expand training.

70's lobbyists from 100 co/trade gps State Gov Affairs Cncl, funded Cncl state gov, pro biz but not radical enough, so ALEC, fdr Weyrich, differs from spn in that it actually writes legis; 2k members; corps pay up to $50K/yr; into 1/k/yr, 20% pass 212

~ min wage, net neutral; big funder of climate/~ grn pwr; PIC: Laurie Shanblum CCA, mtg w/ Russell Pearce AZ state sen, wrote SB 1070 (show yr papers; but you can tell by shoes 214; AZ has 3 CCA jails, want to grow more;

Pershing Sq cp investor; Jan Brewer hired CCA top lobbyist and camp chr; dep COS; 2/3 1070 co-spon either alec member or at conf where written; 30 got $ during debate; Mgt & Training Corp; clone 1070 tried in penn, ok, tenn, colo, fla; TP boost.

gop wants rx care across state lines, so biz can flee to least consumer protection (//credit card [utah?] 216

ban lawsuit of hmo

10 states w/ gop gain 2010, voter restrictions 217

2010 gerrymander (had org/strategy custom made?]

rove and gillespie polled, found ppl receptive to overpaid teachers arg "new fed bureaucratic elite" 219 SPN/SAM posted public worker salaries (foia bomb where not easy to get); helped kasich gut collective barg; // Koch fight Back WI, walker 40K koch $, tim phillips stumped; spn/mciver bogus studies support gt unions, NYT oped; claimed tcher got 2z avg pvt wage or 100K actually 50 222

3 ez fix for budget, but walker cut taxes; public empl had already offered concessions, so goal was to kill union 223; mciver had war room ~ union; partnered w. Franklin news bur; hired local reporter and gop staffer; made VNR; Drew Ryun opps res bloggers: said bbq union in ret for votes; local da said bogus 224.

2012 looked like big democr win, but gerrymander so only 10 of 23 seats needed to have any power 226; conv wisdom is that gop $ wasted, but actually prevented dem sweep 227; big GOTV TP ginned eg by AFP (telemkt mogul lend infra?); right after election, went after Kay hagen for 2014 by oil co;

2012 record corp profits; ceo 3500x avg worker; avg family lost 40% wealth in Gt Rec; foreclosures, domestic viol etc riples

occupy ridiculed in press and smashed by cops and surveill state; 230 endit

moyers

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released a breakdown of who in the US contributes the most to global warming — by state, by sector and even by individual business.

Two massive coal-fired power plants in the southeast came in first and second place for generating the most greenhouse gases in America, clearing the competition by more than five million metric tons of emissions per year. The Scherer Steam Generating Plant, 20 miles northeast of Macon, Georgia, was responsible for 22.3 million tons of emissions in 2013, and the James H. Miller, Jr. power plant, 20 miles northeast of Birmingham, Alabama, generated 21.9 million tons. Coming in as a distant third was the Navajo Generating Station, in northern Arizona, with roughly 16 million tons of emissions. Overall, power plants are responsible for about one third of all of the country’s emissions.

At the state level, the top greenhouse gas producer was Texas, with more than double the output of Indiana, the second-largest producer. Texas also produces and consumes more energy than any state in the union.The energy Texas creates comes largely, but not entirely, from its oil and natural gas reserves. And the state’s biggest consumers of energy are the refining and chemical industries, which, in many cases, support the state’s fossil fuel extraction efforts and have some of the most energy-intensive operations in the US.

But if you look at greenhouse gas emissions per capita, Wyoming and a handful of other relatively unpopulated states far surpass Texas. Wyoming, like runners-up North Dakota and West Virginia, generates a huge amount of energy, mostly from fossil fuels. But these states send much of the energy they produce to other states. Wyoming sends 326 trillion BTUs elsewhere, North Dakota exports 231 trillion BTUs, and West Virginia sends 412 trillion BTUs to other states.

Producing all that dirty energy takes a toll on residents. “When coal is burning at Wyoming power plants, nearby states get electricity and we get the pollution,” Shannon Anderson, a representative of the Powder River Basin Resource Council, a Wyoming citizens’ organization suing to improve air quality in the state, said in March.

Though carbon dioxide, one of the chief drivers of global warming, does not significantly affect people’s health, other gases and the particulate matter emitted by coal plants — which includes lead and mercury — have considerable negative health effects. When the Obama administration released its state-by-state plan to curtail emissions in June, many public health advocates expressed support. “Power plant pollution makes people sick and cuts short lives,” the American Lung Association said in a statement at the time, noting that the EPA’s proposed limits on carbon pollution from power plants “would reduce the burden of air pollution in America, prevent up to 4,000 premature deaths and 100,000 asthma attacks in the first year they are in place, and prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths and 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030.”But the risks to the residents of high emission states aren’t limited to air quality concerns. The Freedom Industries spill in West Virginia last January and the coal ash spill in North Carolina last February are just the latest incidents which show that the health risks of living near coal-fired power plants aren’t always tied to what comes out of smokestacks. The Freedom Industries spill of a chemical used to process coal — the health effects of which are still unclear — contaminated 300,000 West Virginian’s drinking water. And the North Carolina spill, which Duke Energy has only cleaned up 10 percent of so far, poured 39,000 tons of coal ash containing toxins such as arsenic, chromium, mercury and lead into the Dan River, coating the river bottom for 70

http://billmoyers.com/content/epa-ghg-emissions/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/State-by-State_Guide_to_Information_on_Fracking_in_the_United_States

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/State-by-State_Guide_to_Information_on_Coal_in_the_United_States

http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml

In early 2010, Republican strategists launched a new project called RedMap. The idea was to flip as many statehouses across the country to Republican majorities during the 2010 election cycle — particularly in states where congressional redistricting was pending.

"The thinking behind it, which was very ingenious, was that state legislative races are cheap, and if you can just put a bit of money into them and flip the statehouse, then you can control the redistricting process, which in turn gives the Republican Party a great advantage in putting members of Congress in the House of Representatives," says New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer. "And most people don't pay a lot of attention to what's going on in the states. ... But it's kind of ground zero for where politics is playing out."

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141078608/the-multimillionaire-helping-republicans-win-n-c

This is the 24/7 Wall St. ranking of the 10 greenest and the 10 least green states.

The Greenest States

10. Colorado

Population: 5,024,748 (22nd)

GDP:$252.6 Billion (19th)

Toxic Waste: 41,532 Tons (19th)

Carbon Footprint: 98.1 Million Metric Tons (27th)

Alternative Energy: 10.0% (14th)

Colorado benefits in ranking from above-average pollution scores, scoring sixth best for birth-defect inducing toxins and carcinogenic chemicals released into waterways. Colorado also ranks 12th in particle pollution. The "Centennial State" has very good policy scores, ranking seventh for energy-saving targets, according to ACEEE's assesment. More than 6% of Colorado's total energy output is from alternative resources, the eighth best rating in the country.

9. Oregon

Population:3,825,657 (27th)

GDP: $165.6 Billion (26th)

Toxic Waste: 61,876 Tons (23rd)

Carbon Footprint: 43.5 Million Metric Tons (10th)

Alternative Energy: 63.4% (3rd)

Oregon ranks in the middle third for all of our pollution metrics, including 29th in EPA toxic waste violations and 33rd in toxic exposure, according to the RSEI index. Oregon does exceptionally well both in policy and alternative energy. In the Pew Center on Global Climate Change's list of state energy-saving programs, Oregon has the second-most, behind only California. The state also produces the second-most hydroelectric energy, and the eighth most non-hydroelectric alternative energy, mostly from state wind farms.

8. Idaho

Population: 1,545,801 (39th)

GDP: $54 Billion (42nd)

Toxic Waste: 4,808 Tons (9th)

Carbon Footprint:16.2 Million Metric Tons (4th)

Alternative Energy: 84.5% (1st)

Idaho generates the greatest relative amount of renewable energy in the country, with 84.5% of all energy coming from alternative sources. "The Gem State" also ranks fifth for producing geothermal energy thanks to its unique terrain, and sixth for conventional hydroelectric power, thanks to the Snake River Plain and the state's smaller rivers. Furthermore, the state has the fourth lowest rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. This is largely the result of the state's extensive use of renewable energy.

7. Montana

Population: 974,989 (44th)

GDP: $35 Billion (48th)

Toxic Waste:37,758 Tons (17th)

Carbon Footprint: 37.7 Million Metric Tons (9th)

Alternative Energy:36.5% (6th)

Montana is unofficially nicknamed "Big Sky Country." It is understandable that residents would be proud of their air, as it is tied for the lowest rate of ozone particulates in the nation, according to the American Lung Association. The state also ranks well in many other categories. It ranks seventh for total energy used, however, this is largely the result of the state's relatively low population density, the third lowest in the country.

6. South Dakota

Population: 812,383 (46th)

GDP: $38.3 Billion (46th)

Toxic Waste:1,214 Tons (2nd)

Carbon Footprint:13.7 Million Metric Tons (3rd)

>Alternative Energy: 44.3% (5th)

South Dakota has the fifth-lowest population in the country and, along with that, its pollution is relatively low. The home of Mount Rushmore has only had 14 EPA violations since 2000, far and away the fewest in the nation. It also generated roughly 1,200 tons of hazardous waste last year, which is the second-lowest amount in the country, behind only Hawaii. South Dakota only produced 13.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the third-lowest in the country. South Dakota is above average – but not stellar – in terms of public policy, but it does rank fourth in the state utility alternative energy savings with a target of 10% by 2015.

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,295,178 (42nd)

GDP: $66.4 Billion (38th)

Toxic Waste: 987 Tons (1st)

Carbon Footprint: 24.1 Million Metric Tons (8th)

>Alternative Energy: 7.6% (19th)

Since nearly 25% of Hawaii's gross state product comes from tourism, the state is quite concerned about the environment. Hawaii produces the least amount of toxic waste and received the highest score for two air quality measurements: the EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators toxic exposure rank and the American Lung Association's ozone pollution index. The state also ranks sixth in energy-saving programs and policies.

4. Nevada

>Population: 2,643,085 (35th)

GDP: $126.5 Billion (31st)

Toxic Waste: 11,143 Tons (10th)

Carbon Footprint:41.6 Million Metric Tons (12th)

Alternative Energy: 9.4% (16th)

Nevada has the lowest level of water pollution in the country because the generally arid state has very little fresh water to dump toxins into. The "Silver State" scores well in alternative energy production, with the second-highest production of solar photovoltaic and geothermal energy. Despite its low pollution levels and alternative energy scores, the state is only above average in policy initiatives.

3. New Hampshire

Population:1,324,575 (40th)

GDP: $59.4 Billion (41st)

Toxic Waste: 4,538 Tons (8th)

Carbon Footprint: 19 Million Metric Tons (6th)

Alternative Energy: 12.3% (11th)

New Hampshire has extremely low pollution. The state has the fourth lowest level of harmful particle pollution in the country, according to the American Lung Association, and ranks fifth best with regards to toxic exposure, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators model. New Hampshire has the fourth lowest level of developmental toxins released into its waterways, the fifth lowest level of releases of reproductive toxins and the fifth lowest level of cancer-causing chemicals released.

2. Maine

Population:1,318,301 (41st)

GDP: $51.2 Billion (43rd)

Toxic Waste: 3,687 Tons (6th)

Carbon Footprint: 19.9 Million Metric Tons (7th)

Alternative Energy:49.8% (4th)

Almost half of the electricity generated by Maine comes from renewable sources. The state has the largest percentage of its total energy produced coming from non-hydroelectric renewable sources, a total of 23.7%. Since the state has the highest percentage of timberland in the country, it is not surprising that a large portion of its energy comes from wood and wood waste.

1. Vermont

Population:621,760 (49th)

GDP: $25.4 Billion (50th)

Toxic Waste: 1,536 Tons (3rd)

Carbon Footprint: 6.4 Million Metric Tons (1st)

Alternative Energy: 28.1% (7th)

Vermont has the second smallest population and the lowest GDP in the country. As a result, it produces less pollution than most states. The state releases the fewest carcinogenic toxins and has the smallest carbon footprint in the country. Vermont's success as a green state isn't limited to pollution, however: the "Green Mountain State" ranks in the top 15 in 20 out of 28 ranked categories. Vermont has a number of policies to promote efficiency, alternative energy, and reduce pollution, and so far it has succeeded better than any other state.

The Least Green

10. Illinois

Population: 12,910,409 (5th)

GDP: $630.3 Billion (5th)

Toxic Waste: 1.04 Million Tons (43rd)

Carbon Footprint:242 Million Metric Tons (45th)

Alternative Energy: 1.6% (47th)

Illinois uses the third greatest amount of energy out of all the states. Unfortunately, only 1.6% of this energy comes from renewable sources. This is the fourth worst percentage in the country. The state, with its heavy manufacturing industry, also received the fourth worst toxic exposure score by the EPA. The state, however, does have the seventh highest score for solar energy policy.

9. Missouri

>Population: 5,987,580 (18th)

GDP: $239.7 Billion (22nd)

Toxic Waste:238 Thousand Tons (33rd)

Carbon Footprint: 140 Million Metric Tons (36th)

Alternative Energy: 2.5% (38th)

The nature of 24/7's ranking is such that a state might redeem itself for a shortcoming in one category by exceeding in another. If the state doesn't produce substantial alternative energy, it may be because its size doesn't allow for much production, and this would be balanced to a certain extent by low pollution levels. Missouri is a perfect example of a state which falls flat in every statistical category. Out of 28 ranked metrics, the "Show Me State" breaks the upper 25 only five times, with 16th in air particle score being its highest ranking. The state ranks 37th in policy initiatives and 48th in non-hydroelectric alternative energy.

8. Kentucky

Population:4,314,113 (26th)

GDP:$156.5 Billion (28th)

>Toxic Waste: 132 Thousand Tons (29th)

Carbon Footprint: 156 Million Metric Tons (39th)

Alternative Energy:2.4% (Tied for 39th)

Kentucky performs poorly in most categories on this list. It ranks 43rd for releasing cancer-causing chemicals, 44th for releasing developmental toxins, and 41st for releasing reproductive toxins. The state also ranks 39th for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

7. Texas

Population: 24,782,302 (2nd)

GDP:$1.14 Trillion (2nd)

Toxic Waste: 13.4 Million Tons (50th)

Carbon Footprint: 184 Million Metric Tons (50th)

Alternative Energy:4.6% (28th)

While Texas does well in some areas, such as producing the greatest amount of wind energy in the country, it performs poorly in several pollution categories. Much of this is due to the high rates of industry in the state. Texas ranks absolute last for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, having produced over 670 million metric tons of CO2 in a single year. The second highest amount is produced by California, however that state produced just under 400 million metric tons, a much smaller amount. Among Texas' other poor rankings are 50th for the EPA's toxic exposure score, 47th for total toxic chemicals released into waterways, 46th for cancer-causing chemicals released, 45th for developmental toxins released, and 49th for reproductive toxins released. The state also produces the greatest amount of hazardous waste, generating 13,461,911 tons in one year. This is over three times the amount produced by the second worst-offending state, Georgia, which generates 4,024,468 tons.

6. Pennsylvania

Population: 12,604,767 (6th)

GDP:$554.3 Billion (6th)

Toxic Waste: 290 Thousand Tons (36th)

Carbon Footprint: 274 Million Metric Tons (48th)

Alternative Energy: 2.4% (Tied for 39th)

Unlike many of its northeastern neighbors, Pennsylvania ranks very poorly on our list. This, of course, is due in large part to the state's expansive and polluting industries. The "Keystone State" ranks 48th in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, 49th for particulates in the air, and 49th for toxic exposure. The state's pollution habits are, unfortunately, not very surprising, since it is well-known for its coal, steel, and natural gas industries.

5. New Jersey

Population: 8,707,739 (11th)

GDP:$482.9 Billion (7th)

Toxic Waste: 555 Thousand Tons (39th)

Carbon Footprint: 134 Million Metric Tons (34th)

Alternative Energy: 1.5% (48th)

The only reason most would be surprised about seeing New Jersey here in our ranking is that it isn't dead last. The Garden State is not known for being green, a reputation that is based in truth. The state ranks 45th in air particle pollution and 46th in ozone pollution. New Jersey actually scores well in energy conservation and alternative energy policy, however these policies haven't translated into results. As a percent of energy generated that is alternative, the state ranks third-to-last.

4. Louisiana

Population: 4,492,076 (25th)

>GDP: $208.3 Billion (24th)

>Toxic Waste:3.8 Million Tons (48th)

Carbon Footprint: 194 Million Metric Tons (43rd)

Alternative Energy: 4.1% (30th)

Louisiana is another poor performer. It is 46th in energy-saving policies and programs and has the sixth-smallest alternative energy budget. The state rates horribly in water pollution, falling into the bottom five for releasing carcinogenic toxins, total water pollution, and chemicals which can cause birth defects. Louisiana also produces the third-most toxic waste each year – roughly 3.8 million tons.

3. West Virginia

Population: 1,819,777 (37th)

GDP: $63.3 Billion (39th)>Toxic Waste:92 Thousand Tons (26th)

Carbon Footprint:116 Million Metric Tons (32nd)

Alternative Energy: 1.8% (46th)

West Virginia stands out at the bottom of our list as having a surprisingly low level of energy consumption. Thirty-eight states use more energy each year than the "Mountain State," including Iowa, which is in the top ten on our list. This fact makes West Virginia's horrible performance much more impressive. Only twice does the state break the top 25 in any category, and it ranks in the bottom ten percent in many categories, including alternative energy, policy, air pollution, water pollution, and carbon footprint. The best thing state residents can lay claim to is generating three-quarters of a million megawatt hours of wind energy annually, the 19th best amount for this category.

2. Indiana

Population: 6,423,113 (16th)

GDP: $262.6 Billion (16th)

Toxic Waste: 778 Thousand Tons (41st)

Carbon Footprint: 230 Million Metric Tons (44th)

Alternative Energy: 0.7% (Tied For Last)

Indiana's main source of power production is coal. In fact, Indiana is home to the country's largest coal power plant, the Gibson Generating Station. As a result, the state is tied with Ohio for having the lowest percent usage of renewable energy sources in the United States, with a mere 0.7%. Additionally, the state has some issues with pollution. It releases the greatest amount of toxic chemicals into waterways, releasing over 27 million pounds in one year. The second greatest amount, from Virgina, was significantly less at just over 18 million pounds.

1. Ohio

Population: 11,542,645 (7th)

GDP:$471.2 Billion (8th)

Toxic Waste: 1.3 Million Tons (45th)

Carbon Footprint: 267 Million Metric Tons (47th)

Alternative Energy: 0.7% (Tied for Last)

Ohio ranks fifth in energy consumption, and very little of this demand is met by alternative energy. Only 0.7% of the state's energy comes from renewable sources, the worst rate in the country. Most of the state's energy comes from coal. Along with this tendency comes a long and poor record of pollution. The state ranks 47th for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, 46th for toxic exposure, 47th for developmental toxins released, and 47th for reproductive toxins released. Additionally, the state ranks second worst, just behind Florida, for hazardous waste violations since 2000, as reported by the nonprofit group OMB Watch. Ohio may not rank dead last in an extreme number of subcategories, however its overall extremely poor showing causes it to be ranked as the least environmentally friendly state on our list.

early:

Governing the Nation from the Statehouses: The Rightwing Agenda in the States and How Progressives Can Fight Back [71], Nathan Newman, The Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN), February 21, 2006

"Backed by many of the largest corporations in the country and networked into conservative think tanks and allied political operations, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has helped draft and promote state legislation across the country that has crippled social service budgets, deregulated industries, slashed medical care for the poor and undermined consumer and worker protections in state after state.

[. . .] What the rightwing recognizes is that with a coordinated strategy, a movement can govern the nation from the statehouses. Progressives need to fully understand why state policy matters and how powerful, pervasive and influential those policies are in our everyday lives."

Ghostwriting the Law [72], Karen Olsson, Mother Jones, September/October, 2002 "A little-known corporate lobby is drafting business-friendly bills for state legislators across the country."