Sen Whitehouse bak

---senator kickass:new<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/10/29/dark-money-climate-senate-hearing-whitehouse">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/10/29/dark-money-climate-senate-hearing-whitehouse</a>no lnxToday Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) led a hearing of Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis, which examined “Dark Money and Barriers to Climate Action.” The testimony of the expert panel and the questions and observations from senators reinforced the overwhelming influence of money — and specifically untraceable donations known as “dark money” — working against action on climate change.
Sen. Whitehouse called out the considerable investment by the fossil fuel industry and dark money interests in the Republican Party, which has gained a reputation as the party of climate science denial.“Much of it was used to impose climate denial orthodoxy on the Republican party,” said Whitehouse. “And why not spend a few billion dollars? Buying or renting the Republican Party or seizing it in a hostile takeover … was a total bargain.”Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) noted that funding from powerful special interests has mired congressional action on other issues, such as gun control. He pointed to strong public support for reducing gun violence but a lack of response by Congress.“We’ve already won the battle for public opinion” on guns, said Schatz, who went on to draw a comparison with climate change because a majority of Americans want politicians to take “aggressive” action, but elected officials continue to fall far short.Sen. Schatz asked Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science and expert on climate science denial, to comment on the role of fossil fuel industry funding in fostering this disconnect between public opinion and Congressional action, calling it “structural control of Congress.”“I think that we make a mistake,” said Schatz of some members of Congress, “to misunderstand their willingness to incur political risk on the ‘I had a bad day in the newspaper’ side when their true fear is ‘I had a bad day on the Super PAC side.’ And that’s what this is all about.”“Clearly this is the case,” Oreskes affirmed, “We are seeing the ways in which members of Congress are controlled by the fossil fuel industry.”The hearing featured a number of insights from the witnesses, but perhaps the most important points came from Sen. Whitehouse and Sen. Schatz: that the fossil fuel industry has “structural control” of Congress, and that is why the U.S. has failed to address the climate crisis.
Testimony on Dark Money InfluenceJustin Farrell, Associate Professor of Sociology at Yale University, testified about his research into the influence of dark money in funding climate science denial efforts. His comments will be familiar to readers of DeSmog. Farrell discussed fossil fuel funding of climate science-denying think tanks, fake grassroots groups, and fringe scientists, which create a disorienting web of disinformation for the American public.   “These financed efforts created the appearance of scientific credibility,” said Farrell, “so when the average American citizen turned on cable news, listened to talk radio, or read the morning newspaper, they could not tell the difference between fossil fuel propaganda and trusted science.”Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) echoed Farrell's point, recalling how some constituents once said to him, “Here is the problem. How do we know what to believe?”In his opening comments, Farrell highlighted how the rise of untraceable dark money has made efforts to expose climate science denial propaganda more difficult. “Specifically, the rise of untraceable donor-directed philanthropy — such as Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund — has made it very difficult for researchers to continue their work,” he said.Multiple experts during the hearing reiterated that exposing the funders of misinformation campaigns could “inoculate” the public against the impacts of their efforts. That is why dark money — which is so hard to expose — is so effective.
Bottom Line: Get Money Out of PoliticsDuring the hearing, Oreskes explained that when she asked climate scientists about the best way to address inaction on the climate crisis, they often told her, “We need campaign finance reform.”Oreskes agreed but also stressed the need to remove dark money, in particular, from politics. “We need both,” she said. “Working on campaign finance and exposing the dark money.”Sen. Whitehouse traced the current uphill battle to the pivotal 2010 Supreme Court decision, which opened the door to limitless election spending by corporations on matters like climate change, and led to the rise of Super PACs (political action committees).“There is sort of a cascade that has happened,” said Whitehouse. “A cascade into darkness that happened with the Citizens United decision that opened unlimited special interest money.”He then went on to say that even if the public knows how much dark money is being spent in politics and can trace the source of the money, one major challenge remains:“The hardest part is to try to figure out about the conversations that took place — powered by the unlimited dark money capability that these special interests have. The hardest thing to find around here is the small room where the lobbyists and the candidate met and the lobbyists said, ‘We are coming after you, you are toast, if you don’t do what we say.' And the candidate realizing that with millions, billions of potential dark money spending to drop, that is a very real threat … Ultimately, the threats that Citizens United enabled are the darkest part of this.”In other words: Until the U.S. political system changes and limits the amount of money, and its corresponding power, in politics, the deck will remain stacked in favor of the fossil fuel industry when it comes to Congressional action on climate.<div>=</div><div><div class="views-field views-field-body" style="overflow: inherit;"><div class="field-content">House Oversight Committee, which last week heard testimony on the <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/subcommittee-examined-the-oil-industry-s-efforts-to-suppress-climate-science" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">oil industry’s efforts to suppress climate science</a>, continued to probe the industry’s deception and influence with a hearing on the Trump administration’s proposed rollbacks of clean car standards — rollbacks that stand to benefit Big Oil at the expense of consumers and the environment.At Tuesday’s <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/trump-s-wrong-turn-on-clean-cars-the-effects-of-fuel-efficiency-rollbacks-on" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">hearing</a> of the Oversight Committee’s Environment subcommittee, the oil industry’s importance in affecting the weaker standards for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions was front and center as Republicans led an ultimately unsuccessful effort to adjourn the hearing before witness testimony even began.During the more than half hour delay, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised a question to her Republican colleagues:<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/10/30/oil-house-oversight-hearing-clean-car-standards">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/10/30/oil-house-oversight-hearing-clean-car-standards</a>many lnx vid
This About the Oil Industry?’ House Oversight Hearing Explores Big Oil’s Role in Weakening Clean Car StandardsRead time: 6 minsBy Dana Drugmand • Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 12:24
The House Oversight Committee, which last week heard testimony on the oil industry’s efforts to suppress climate science, continued to probe the industry’s deception and influence with a hearing on the Trump administration’s proposed rollbacks of clean car standards — rollbacks that stand to benefit Big Oil at the expense of consumers and the environment.
At Tuesday’s hearing of the Oversight Committee’s Environment subcommittee, the oil industry’s importance in affecting the weaker standards for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions was front and center as Republicans led an ultimately unsuccessful effort to adjourn the hearing before witness testimony even began.
During the more than half hour delay, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised a question to her Republican colleagues:
“We’re here to talk about the very pressing issue of cutting our carbon emissions and saving our planet, and we have an entire political party that is trying to get out of their job, adjourn this hearing. I just want to know what the reason for such a disrespect of our process may be. Do we have a reason for why this hearing is trying to be adjourned?”
“I have one, I have a real easy one,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota replied. “The oil industry is the second largest industry in my state…”
“Wait, so is this about the oil industry?” Ocasio-Cortez interjected, to which Armstrong immediately denied. “No, it’s about the economy of North Dakota and my constituents,” he responded.
But Armstrong’s initial inclination to bring up the oil industry set the stage for witnesses to reveal who really benefits from weakened fuel economy and emissions standards, as well as how the industry manipulated the rulemaking process that produced the proposed rollbacks.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the delay in the House Oversight's Environment subcommittee.Rollbacks: More Pollution, Higher Costs, More OilAt issue is a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to scale back Obama-era clean car rules including fuel efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emission standards.
The Trump administration’s new Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule would freeze both types of standards at 2020 levels. It would also revoke California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set its own, more stringent standards, currently adopted by 13 other states and the District of Columbia.
The consequences of this proposal are stark.
If the rollbacks survive legal challenges, emissions are expected to rise — one analysis by Rhodium Group projects vehicles will emit an extra 32 million to 114 million metric tons of carbon pollution by 2035. As the Rhodium Group’s Dr. Emily Wimberger testified, the rollbacks along with the revocation of California’s waiver could result in an overall emissions increase of over a gigaton, or 1 billion tons. By 2035, U.S. consumers would be spending an additional $193 billion to $246 billion dollars at the pump, and oil consumption would increase by as much as 881,000 barrels per day.
The Oil Money Behind the RollbacksSenator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island testified to the oil industry’s interest in rolling back clean car standards and its role in influencing the regulatory process, which has led to the proposed policy changes. Whitehouse noted that the Obama-era auto standards would save consumers $1.7 trillion but that those consumer savings translate to lost oil industry revenue.
“So the oil industry mobilized the network of front groups and trade associations that it uses to block climate action,” he said, calling out groups like FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). AFPM is a major lobbying group for oil refiners.
As Whitehouse explained, many of these groups “masquerade as public interest groups but serve as mouthpieces for the fossil fuel industry.”
“To maintain the masquerade, these groups don’t disclose their funders, but all are tied into the network run by fossil fuel interests with a trillion-dollar incentive to undo the fuel economy standards,” he continued.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib poses questions to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
He then revealed the known fossil fuel funding behind some of these groups that sent letters to Trump administration officials and the president himself urging the vehicle standards be weakened. According to Whitehouse, 11 groups that signed a March 2018 letter to then-EPA head Scott Pruitt had received at least $49 million from fossil fuel interests.
A dozen groups that sent a separate letter a month later to Pruitt and Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao reportedly had raked in a minimum of $196 million in fossil fuel money. Two groups that sent a letter the following month to President Trump were linked to a minimum of $7.7 million from fossil fuel interests.
Whitehouse noted the industry influence didn’t stop with letter writing. AFPM sponsored a campaign on Facebook to effectively flood the Federal Register with thousands of identical comments supporting the rollbacks. The effort deployed a front group called Energy4US, and was coordinated by the Consumer Energy Alliance for AFPM, ultimately producing more than one-quarter of all of the comments that the Department of Transportation received on the proposed rule. AFPM also drafted official commentary for the record and recruited Republican governors to sign on to the letter.
Marathon Petroleum, the nation’s largest oil refiner, worked to build support for the weakened standards in state legislatures and circulated a letter filled with industry talking points to legislators in Congress, according to a New York Times investigation published last December.
The Sole Beneficiary of Weakened Fuel Economy RulesGiven this evidence, the Trump administration’s proposed rollbacks of clean car standards appear to trace back to the one stakeholder that stands to benefit from less-efficient vehicles.
“Without a doubt it’s the industry that refines the fuel that would be burned in less efficient vehicles,” Whitehouse said, again noting the $1.7 trillion incentive for the oil industry to push for the weaker standards.
Other witnesses agreed that the rollbacks seem to benefit no one apart from the oil industry, and would lead to loss of global market competitiveness, more premature deaths, greater global warming emissions, higher consumer costs, and other harmful impacts. 
“There are no economic reasons to justify the proposed rollbacks,” said Dr. Antonio Bento, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Southern California.Former California Governor Jerry Brown said the entire purpose of the rollbacks is “to sell more gas-guzzlers,” against the resolve of Californians to aggressively act on climate change.
Brown noted the state is facing “real terror” with the wildfires currently raging. “California’s burning while the [climate] deniers make a joke out of the standards that protect us all,” he said.<div>
</div></div></div></div><div></div><div>sci mag 2015</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/climate-scientist-requesting-federal-investigation-feels-heat-house-republicans">https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/climate-scientist-requesting-federal-investigation-feels-heat-house-republicans</a></div><div>
</div><div>Climate scientist requesting federal investigation feels heat from House Republicans</div><header class="articleheader articleheader--inline" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 699px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/author/warren-cornwall" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Warren Cornwall</a><time style="box-sizing: inherit; white-space: nowrap; font-weight: 400; border-left: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); margin-left: 7.5px; padding-left: 7.5px;">Oct. 5, 2015 , 3:30 PM</time></header><div class="article__body" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 699px; overflow: hidden; overflow-wrap: break-word; min-width: 0px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(230, 230, 230); margin-top: 30px; padding-top: 30px;">A scientist who helped organize a call for a federal investigation of the fossil fuel industry—for allegedly orchestrating a cover-up of climate change dangers—has himself become the target of a congressional probe.Last week, Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the chairman of the science panel of the House of Representatives, <a href="https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-taxpayer-funded-climate-org-allegedly-seeks-criminal-penalties-skeptics" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">announced plans</a> to investigate a nonprofit research group led by climate scientist Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He is the lead signer of a letter to White House officials that urges the use of an antiracketeering law to crack down on energy firms that have funded efforts to raise doubts about climate science.In a <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/10-1-15%20CLS%20to%20Shukla.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">1 October letter</a>, Smith asked Shukla, who is director of the independent <a href="http://www.iges.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES)</a> in Rockville, Maryland, to preserve all of the “email, electronic documents, and data” that the institute has created since 2009. Smith’s panel soon may be asking for those documents, the letter suggests.The flap has its origins in calls from some climate advocates for the federal government to investigate industry-funded groups that have challenged climate science.  Senator SheldonWhitehouse (D–RI) discussed the idea this past May in an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.538em;">opinion piece</a> for The Washington Post. He noted that federal prosecutors had used the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)—originally developed to combat organized crime and corrupt unions—to sue the tobacco industry for covering up the health effects of smoking. And he suggested they could do the same to investigate fossil fuel firms that he charged were “funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.”Last month, 20 climate scientists, led by Shukla, picked up on the idea of using RICO. In a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http:/www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">1 September letter</a> to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren, they wrote that “if corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in book and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible.”Other signers of the RICO letter include climate researchers from George Mason as well as the University of Washington, Seattle; Rutgers University in New Jersey; the University of Maryland, College Park; and Columbia University.Shukla, a professor at George Mason, is an expert in the seasonal variability of climate, as well as how land surfaces influence climate. He helped found IGES, which has housed research projects funded with grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA, according to the group’s website.The RICO letter was “inadvertently” posted on the IGES website, <a href="http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">according to a statement posted on the institute’s domain</a> (which also notes that “[a]ll projects by IGES  were  completed  in  July  2015,  and  the  IGES  web  site  is  in  the process  of  being  decommissioned”).  The letter eventually came to the attention of outsiders, including science policy specialist Roger Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado, Boulder. Pielke, an active voice in debates over climate science and policy, called attention to the letter on Twitter, and also raised questions about IGES’s finances. Soon, journalists, including several associated with conservative news outlets, were writing about the letter and IGES. The Daily Caller, for example, noted that “climate scientists asking Obama to prosecute skeptics got millions from U.S. taxpayers,” <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/climate-scientists-asking-obama-to-prosecute-skeptics-gets-millions-from-u-s-taxpayers/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700;">in a 21 September story</a>.Smith cites that story and others in his letter, which notes that “IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change.” Smith notes his letter was prompted, in part, by the removal of the RICO letter from IGES’s website. Smith gives Shukla until 8 October to confirm that he is conforming to the letter’s request, as well as provide his committee with a list of IGES’s current and former employees.Shukla could not be reached for an interview, but in an email to ScienceInsider expressed surprise at the storm the RICO letter has caused. “We can not believe the viciousness of attacks because we signed a letter as our civic duty with the ultimate goal of repairing our planet,” he wrote.It’s not clear what exactly Smith’s committee will be investigating. A committee spokeswoman, Laura Crist, declined to say whether the panel was looking at whether public funds were misused for political purposes, or whether IGES might have violated its nonprofit status with political activity. [OMFG vs c4's?!]The committee’s ranking Democrat, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), said in a statement to ScienceInsider that, “since the letter contains no specific allegations, I am puzzled as to the Chairman’s intent in writing it. To be clear about my own position, I would resist any attempt to stifle the constitutionally protected right of any citizen, including the nation’s scientists, to engage in free speech without interference.”The RICO letter has also drawn the attention of Christopher Horner, an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.–based libertarian think tank that has criticized climate change research. Horner recently filed public records requests with several public universities that employ authors of the RICO letter. In a letter to the University of Texas, Austin, Horner asks for any emails over a roughly 4-month period from or to Robert Dickinson, one of the letter’s signers, containing the words “‘RICO’, racketeer, racketeering, DOJ, prosecute or prosecution.”Horner has previously tangled with scientists over records requests for their emails. He was at the center of an unsuccessful effort several years ago to obtain the correspondence of climate scientist Michael Mann during his time at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.Horner says he filed the requests to see how the scientists, as employees at public universities, were involved. “If they believe this is part of their job, we will not dispute that, but instead would like to see how the institutions were used in this innovative application of public education resources,” he wrote in an email.Dickinson, a climate modeler who studies how land surfaces interact with climate, says the RICO letter isn’t seeking to squelch individuals who question the science of climate change. His intended target is corporations.“I heard energy industry scientists talking about global warming 30 years ago. And they disappeared and the lobbyists popped up,” Dickinson says. “I don’t know if anything can be done. But it seemed to me that there's been an obvious cover-up.”The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment. The RICO letter scientists did get a letter back from Holdren, who wrote that although such legal matters were up to the Justice Department, “the Administration shares the concern expressed in the letter about the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change.”</div><div></div> 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; background-color: transparent; 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; background-color: transparent; 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; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><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; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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.”  <div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/to-slow-global-warming-we-need-nuclear-power.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/to-slow-global-warming-we-need-nuclear-power.html</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If  20 fire marshals came around and told us our houses were about to burn down, we’d buy some fire insurance. So when the leading science academies in 20 developed countries, along with several major American corporations and the national security community, all tell us that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous changes to the climate, we think it’s time for the United States to get serious about clean energy. It also means supporting safely operating nuclear power plants that produce carbon-free electricity.</div><section name="articleBody" itemprop="articleBody" class="meteredContent css-1i2y565" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn" style="margin: 0px auto 1rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: flex; flex-direction: row; height: 1005px; width: 1200px;"><div class="css-53u6y8" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px calc((100% - 600px) / 2); padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 600px;"><p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">Already, 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from the 99 nuclear reactors that dot the nation’s map, from Avila Beach, Calif., to Seabrook, N.H. These reactors provide low-cost, reliable electricity for the United States, which uses nearly 20 percent of the world’s electricity. But over the next decade, at least eight of these reactors are scheduled to shut down. That will push up carbon emissions from the American electricity sector by nearly 3 percent, according to the United States Energy Information Administration.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">In California, the closing of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2012 contributed to a 24 percent increase in carbon emissions from the electricity sector, according to data from the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. Carbon emissions from the electricity sector in New England rose 5 percent in 2015, the first year-to-year increase since 2010, largely because of the closing of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in December 2014, according to ISO New England, the region’s grid operator.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">In roughly two decades, the United States could lose about half its reactors. That’s because, by 2038, 50 reactors will be at least 60 years old, and will face having to close, representing nearly half of the nuclear generating capacity in the United States. Without them, or enough new reactors to replace them, it will be much harder to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.</div><aside class="css-o6xoe7" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px auto; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: flex; width: 210px; -webkit-box-align: center; align-items: center;"><div class="css-ke163a" data-testid="article-companion-wrapper" style="margin: 25px auto 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 1200px;"><div class="css-48vsi0" id="newsletter-module" style="margin: 0px auto 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; overflow: hidden; width: 180px;"><div class="css-1k9ek97" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="css-tjpxhb" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; width: 180px;"><div name="regilite" class="css-sefkcv" method="post" autocomplete="off" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; height: auto; width: 180px;"><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;" /></div></div></div></div></div></aside></div><div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn" style="margin: 0px auto 1rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: flex; flex-direction: row; height: 945px; width: 1200px;"><div class="css-53u6y8" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px calc((100% - 600px) / 2); padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 600px;"><p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">Unfortunately, some of our federal policies to encourage clean energy, such as the Clean Energy Incentive Program within President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, do not explicitly include or incentivize nuclear power. Likewise, some states have chosen to adopt policies, such as renewable portfolio standards, that do not include or incentivize nuclear power.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">At the same time, our energy markets do not currently account for the value of carbon-free power, a failure that puts nuclear power at an unfair and economically inefficient disadvantage to fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">We come from different political parties, but we agree on the overall goal of leveling the playing field for nuclear power, and the need to find a bipartisan solution to achieve it. This matters because the investments we make today, in new plants and transmission infrastructure, will be around for decades. Every time new fossil energy replaces nuclear, we’re locking ourselves in to a more carbon-heavy energy mix for years to come.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">Some states and utilities are working to reduce carbon emissions with the understanding that nuclear power can be part of the solution. In the Southeast, there are four new reactors under construction that will provide 4,470 megawatts of carbon-free electricity — enough for 3.3 million homes. New York established a clean-energy standard in August that might help the state’s reactors stay open, including one that had been announced as closing. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office explained that “maintaining zero-emission nuclear power is a critical element to achieving New York’s ambitious climate goals.” And the private sector is pitching in, too: According to Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, there are dozens of entrepreneurs focusing on ways to improve and expand the nuclear power industry.</div></div><div class="css-190ncxp" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; width: 1571px; height: 1rem;"><div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn" style="margin: 0px auto 1rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: flex; flex-direction: row; height: 810px; width: 1200px;"><div class="css-53u6y8" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px calc((100% - 600px) / 2); padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 600px;"><p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">The federal government should support these efforts.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">For one thing, we should extend existing reactor licenses from 60 to 80 years, in cases where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is safe to do so.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">We should also invest more in research to develop advanced nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors and accident-tolerant fuels. Advanced reactor designs may substantially reduce the threat of a meltdown. Many new, modular designs are much smaller than their predecessors, meaning they can be built in factories at lower cost and plugged into the grid as needed.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.9375rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">Some of these new reactor technologies could actually use waste from traditional reactors as fuel, helping to alleviate a major challenge facing the industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing framework, developed to support the last generation of reactors, should be updated to encourage and promote new investment in the next wave of advanced nuclear technology. And finally, we need to resolve the stalemate over where to store used nuclear reactor fuel.<p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.875rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%;">If we want to clean the air and reduce carbon emissions to deal with climate change, we need a stronger, not weaker, nuclear energy sector. Congress, federal agencies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must work with utilities to preserve our existing reactors in the safest possible way, and to develop the next generation of reactors that will provide cheaper, reliable, carbon-free electricity.</div><aside class="css-o6xoe7" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px auto; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: flex; width: 210px; -webkit-box-align: center; align-items: center;" /></div></div></section><div class="bottom-of-article" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="css-1ubp8k9" style="margin: 1rem auto 1.25rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: italic; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.75rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 600px;"><div class="css-1yif149" style="margin: 2rem auto 1rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.375rem; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 600px;"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a Democrat from Rhode Island.</div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/08/exclusive-senators-are-demanding-information-about-giulianis-opioid-lobbying/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/08/exclusive-senators-are-demanding-information-about-giulianis-opioid-lobbying/</a></div><div>many docs</div><div>
</div><div>More than a decade ago, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma approached Rudy Giuliani, then fresh off a stint as the lauded mayor of New York City, asking for help: The little-known pharmaceutical company needed a trusted lawyer to help fight growing public relations and legal battles. It was 2002, and Purdue was facing its first lawsuits accusing the company of underplaying the addictive effects of its signature drug. By the time Purdue sought Giuliani’s guidance, he was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/us/politics/28oxycontin.html" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">reportedly</a> helping raise money for a museum dedicated to the Drug Enforcement Administration and his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, was consulting the Justice Department on reorganizing its major drug investigations.</div>
Recent developments cast a new light on the arrangement: Today, Giuliani serves as President Donald Trump’s lawyer, and Purdue Pharma is largely <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">viewed</a> as responsible for helping <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2017/12/a-brief-blood-boiling-history-of-the-opioid-epidemic/" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">sow the seeds</a> of the current overdose epidemic, which killed roughly <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/08/overdoses-2017-record-high/" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">72,000 Americans</a> last year. Purdue employed Giuliani Partners for years, clad with its founder’s shiny post-9/11 reputation and political connections. When a federal investigation in the mid-2000s threatened company executives with the prospect of felonies and jail time, the firm helped Purdue’s top brass get off with misdemeanor “misbranding” <a href="http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/107CR00029.PDF" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">convictions</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/health/purdue-opioids-oxycontin.html" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">community service</a> in 2007. Purdue Pharma’s parent company, Purdue Frederick, pleaded <a href="http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/107CR00029.PDF" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">guilty</a> to a misbranding felony that cost it $600 million, but Giuliani helped strike a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/22/rudy-giuliani-opioid-epidemic-oxycontin-purdue-pharma" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">deal</a> that enabled Purdue Pharma to continue selling its blockbuster painkiller OxyContin. “Among Mr. Giuliani’s missions was the job of convincing public officials that they could trust Purdue because they could trust him,” as the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/us/politics/28oxycontin.html" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">put it</a> that year. On Wednesday, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) sent letters to the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration requesting information on the respective agencies’ contact with Giuliani Partners. The letters, shared with Mother Jones, draw heavily on a recent New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/health/purdue-opioids-oxycontin.html" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">investigation</a> finding that federal prosecutors knew about OxyContin’s widespread abuse and originally recommended that Purdue executives be charged with felonies, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. But top Justice Department officials in the George W. Bush administration pushed back—deciding instead to settle the case in 2007 rather than take it to trial. The letters also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/us/politics/28oxycontin.html" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">cite</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/05/oxycontin-purdue-pharma-federal-investigation-dopesick-excerpt-219158" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">investigations</a> suggesting that Giuliani used his political connections to influence the relatively lenient outcome of the federal suit, as well as the lax approach the Drug Enforcement Administration took in curbing misuse of the drug. In addition to asking for documentation of communications between the federal agencies and Giuliani Partners, the letters ask pointed questions about Giuliani himself, such as “What steps were taken to ensure that Giuliani’s other relationships with DOJ and its components did not improperly influence plea negotiations?”In recent years, dozens of states and municipalities have filed lawsuits against opioid makers and distributors including Purdue, alleging that the overdose epidemic has caused a strain on public resources. Last week, Trump <a href="http://major%20lawsuit/" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" motherjones="motherjones" css="css" img="img" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" rgb="rgb" px="px" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-position: 0px 90%; background-image: url(">asked</a> Attorney General Jeff Sessions to bring a separate, “major lawsuit” against opioid companies. “Given that Mr. Giuliani has emerged as one of the President’s closest advisors, it’s important that we determine whether his past work on behalf of Purdue, a company that misled prescribers and patients alike about the addictive nature of its drug OxyContin, will influence this administration’s actions in terms of holding Purdue accountable for the devastating impact of its aggressive marketing of this drug,” wrote Ricki Eshman, Hassan’s press secretary.Read the full letters below:...<div></div>icnEnvironmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, facing a complaint that he had violated the law restricting political activity by federal officials, will not attend an Oklahoma GOP fundraising gala where he was slated to be keynote speaker, an administration official told InsideClimate News on Thursday.
The decision came after Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel over an invitation for a $100-a-plate May 5 Oklahoma Republican Party gala that promoted the chance to see Pruitt as it solicited  "sponsorships" of $2,000 to $5,000.
"You do not want to miss Pruitt at this year's OKGOP Gala, as he discusses his plans to slash regulations, bring back jobs to Oklahoma, and decrease the size of the EPA!" the invitation said. "Make sure to purchase your Gala tickets so you don't miss out on Administrator Pruitt's future plans and how he will continue to Drain the Swamp! This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, so buy your tickets before they sell out."
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt received top billing on the gala's promotional materials.EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt received top billing on the GOP fundraiser's promotional materials.Whitehouse argued it was a violation of the Hatch Act, the 1939 law that prevents federal officials from using their office for political purposes. He said the "unmistakable impression" from the invitation was that by purchasing a ticket or sponsorship, the attendee would have special access to a federal employee discussing planned and pending official actions. "Anything short of prohibiting his attendance will not change, in the public's perception, that the OKGOP's Gala is a 'pay-to-play' event with a federal Cabinet official," Whitehouse's complaint said.
The administration official said the decision for Pruitt not to attend the event on Tuesday night was made after realizing that the flyer for the event had been distributed by the Oklahoma GOP without an opportunity for Pruitt's office to review it. Pruitt's office worked with EPA's ethics office to ensure that attendance at the event would comply with the law, and one of the rules had been that EPA be able to review the invitation in advance, the official said....<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?423902-2/words-senator-sheldon-whitehouse">https://www.c-span.org/video/?423902-2/words-senator-sheldon-whitehouse</a>Led by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Ed Markey (MA), Brian Schatz (HI), and Barbara Boxer (CA), our Climate Champions are introducing new legislation TODAY to STOP Koch brother-backed climate denial “research” from interfering with action on climate change. ==<a href="http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=14B7203D-50FE-4BA9-82FC-B76756B70503&download=1">http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=14B7203D-50FE-4BA9-82FC-B76756B70503&download=1</a>
Nineteen U.S. Senators who understand the need to clear the PR pollution that continues to block overdue climate policy spoke out on the Senate floor Monday in support of the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/web-of-denial-resolution" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Senate Web of Denial Resolution</a> calling out the destructive forces of fossil fuel industry-funded <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/search/?q=climate+denial" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate denial</a>.</div>