Sierra Club Takes on Chevron: One of Thousands of Local Battles
It’s a good bet that many 2GreenEnergy readers receive several emails daily from groups supporting causes that could be called “progressive,” at least insofar as the environment is concerned. Perhaps the most boisterous of these is the Sierra Club, with their multi-pronged attack on the forces that would profit at the expense of the welfare of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, not to mention the health of its people more directly. Today we received this exhortation re: Chevron’s buying elections near one of their plants in Northern California, as follows:
Richmond, California’s City Council voted to sue Chevron after an explosion at its refinery sent over 15,000 workers and residents—15% of the population—to nearby hospitals. Chevron’s response?
Dump more than $3 million in the 2014 election to pack the city council and mayor’s office with pro-industry candidates. Despite being outspent 20-1, Richmond residents defeated all of Chevron’s candidates—an extraordinary victory in an era when corporations spend millions of dollars to influence elections.
Undaunted, Chevron is still at it—trying to elect their hand-picked candidates at the local, state and federal levels in their relentless quest to prioritize profit over public health, the safety of their workers, and the environment.
It goes without saying that I support the Sierra Club here—and in the vast majority of the other positions it takes on a daily basis. But I also want to point out that the process of buying elections is endemic in our society. Stopping Chevron here is akin to building a wall of sand around the magnificent castle you’ve built at the beach with your kids.
Until we get corporate money out of politics altogether, we’ll be fighting skirmishes like this one….forever. Thus the imperative for some of the most important initiatives of our time:
“MoveToAmend” and “Saving American Democracy,” overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision in 2010, and
“Mayday,” the initiative to elect leaders who refuse to accept huge campaign contributions from special interests.
It’s like dealing with cockroaches in your apartment. Yes, you can step on them when you see them, but that’s not likely to handle your problem.
Note: Within seconds of my hitting the “publish” button here, I heard my email chime with this little gem:
Comcast has stooped to an all-new low in their attempt to monopolize the cable market by taking over Time Warner.
They know that government regulators could be on the verge of blocking the takeover, so Comcast has started asking nonprofit groups that have received Comcast charitable donations to lobby the FCC in support of the takeover.1
We’re talking about Boys and Girls Clubs, local chapters of United Way and Big Brothers and Big Sisters, autism research groups—nonprofits that rely on corporate sponsorships to work.2 It’s disgusting.
Yes, it is disgusting. Looks like that “cockroach” analogy wasn’t too bad after all…
1. Comcast Recruits Its Beneficiaries to Lobby for Time Warner Deal, The New York Times, April 5, 2015
2. Comcast donations help company secure support for Time Warner Cable merger, Arstechnica, August 22, 2014
The greatest threat to our national security is here at home – it’s the very flood of bribery capital that has taken our state and national Capitols by storm.
The words of Abraham Lincoln illuminate the danger of inaction against the fixated and methodical army of corporate lobbyists – 11,000 strong and pouring out bribery at an average of $6 million per congressperson in 2012 alone…
“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Good government is how We the People defend our Public Commons and advance our Common Good. Good government won’t come from people who hate government.
Want improvement? Ban bribery in all its forms. That’s the most important and central issue that controls all others. As long as cash reigns as king, we’ll be slaves to greed and cowardice.
This website reports on who contributes and who votes on issues here is another example of paid for politicians & big industry trying to influence the EPA. ( Even though there not scientists)
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/breaking-party-ranks-on-epa-science-vote/
Yes, I’ve seen that. Thanks for presenting it here.
The famous psychologist and philosopher, Jeddu Krishnamurti, often talked about the fragmentary nature of political action, and I feel that fits into the “cockroach” metaphor that Craig Shields uses.
I once heard someone comment in a similar fashion about political action, using the analogy of stomping out brushfires in a field (rather than the cockroach analogy.) As he put it, once you put one out, you look around and there are usually many more that have started from the flying embers of the original fire. (This is no joke, as anyone who has ever been around a brush fire can testify to, especially in an open field with tall growing grasses, like sage grass, populating it).
But going back to what I was saying about Krishnamurti . . .
One thing that he speaks of is how all thought is – by its very nature – partial. That is, it only sees one part of the whole picture. And so, no matter how valid and true a thought or concept or perception may be, you can only deal with “one thing at a time” using the mind or intellect. The whole, being beyond even the sum of the parts (and not just beyond the parts themselves), can never be fathomed via the parts, and thus can’t be adequately dealt with that way. Yet that is what political action is limited and governed by: thought itself. So no matter how inevitable it may seem to take part in political action, or how compelled we feel to take part in it, it can never bring about that wholeness, or peace, or whatever you might like to call it, for very long, or very deeply, or very “holistically.” In fact, it inevitably breeds more conflict and more mischief.
If this wasn’t true, I’m sure that the “ideals” that we humans have always sought would long ago have converged into some blissful utopian society, brimming over with perfect justice and harmony.
That doesn’t mean I don’t feel joy in the fact that the Sierra Club and other “progressives” defeated the ogre called “Chevron” in regard to Richmond, CA. I do. But we all know that the battles never cease . . .
Craig,
The Sierra Club is a massive lobby group, heavily funded and very politically motivated. It also enjoys being a 501(c) organization, also known colloquially as a 501(c), is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.
The Sierra Club officially listed as a “Nonprofit Advocacy Organization” , with over 2.5 million members. and an annual budget of over 100 million. Because of of it’s vast membership, and army of willing volunteers and collective resources with other like-minded organizations, it’s lobbying power is estimated as being worth $30-40 billion dollars in conventional terms.
No corporation, however wealthy, could match that kind of lobbying power !
Corporations, are part of society. Unlike organizations like the Sierra Club, they pay taxes. They’re entitled to have a voice in community policies like every other tax payer.
We all accept and benefit from the employment, tax, products, and economy produced by corporations. You can’t just accept the benefits, while biting and abusing the hand that feeds you, and provides the economic conditions that permit freedom of speech.
All societies governed by representative government, must allow an unfettered access to politicians, and the political process. When you try to silence your opponents, you ultimately end up silencing yourself.
Corporate lobbying, or support for one politician or policy in a political debate, isn’t corrupt if done overtly. That’s just free speech !
You may not like what corporations stand for, or even agree with their view of public policy, but by attempting to deny their right to participate in the process overtly, you are inviting covert corruption, and undermining democratic process.
” It’s only by guaranteeing my opponents right to free speech, that I guarantee my own ! ”
(Robert F Kennedy ).
“Oppression begins with well meaning men, suppressing the opinions of those individuals, and organizations, they deem unworthy to participate in public debate” (Lord Robert Cecil ).
Supporters of the ‘ Volstead Act”, also believed that they were on the “side of the angels”. The consequences were disastrous, but that never matters to those who believe that they alone, possess the key’s to public morality, and all other voices should be stilled.
The right to disagree is fundamental to any democratic process. Telling your opponent that it’s “hijacking democracy.”, by expressing it’s opinion, or attempting to have it’s message heard, it’s hypocrisy.
” At the heart of every socialist, is a fascist waiting for the opportunity to dispense with the cloak of democratic practice ” . ( P. J.” O’Rourke ).
I could imagine the outcry if Trade Unions were barred from lobbying,or supporting candidates !
There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, “hooray for our side” ( paraphrased, Buffalo Springfield).
What is, or is not, a worthy lobby group, is a subjective judgement. The US constitution provided for the right to free speech, and free association. Attempts to erode that freedom, eventually always Fail at the First Amendment It may take a long time, but the passion for freedom, will always outlast the paranoia of individual era’s.
Democratic process requires a cacophony of voices, not the strident exclusive views of politically correct, self-appointed moral guardians and censors.
I think we are saying essentially the same thing here. My motivation for removing the big money from politics is precisely that: enabling every voice to be heard.
…. and to be heard in the spirit of true democracy, i.e., one person equals one vote.
In 2012, the campaign spending for all the elections for president, house and senate was about $6.2 billion ($21 per American). That year alone, ExxonMobil, by itself, profited $44.8 billion.
That means ExxonMobil, all by itself, could have bought BOTH SIDES of all the federal elections in the country with just 14% of its 2012 profits! …14% of ONE year’s PROFITS!
Cameron,
Your comment is a little disingenuous, and mythical. If what you say was true, then corporate opponents would never be elected !
But, in reality corporate opponents are frequently elected !
In fact, corporations exist to produce products, and make profits for share holders. Election contribution are considered an overhead expense.
Corporations are controlled by shareholders (often in the hundreds of thousands). If a company was seen to be spending excessively on necessary political contributions, at the expense of shareholder profits, the directors would find themselves answerable to the Banks, Unions, and shareholders.
Rather than eroding democracy by selecting who can and can’t take part in the public life, the US could extend the term of the House of Representatives to four year terms. Such a reform would remove the need for a newly elected Congressperson being to forced to start raising his re-election campaign fund, before they even get sworn in !
No one can “buy’ an election ! It’s a myth. With the new power of social media, money alone is insufficient. Organizations like the Sierra Club, with millions of volunteers, are far more influential than just money.
The real problem facing US democracy, is that such a low percentage of citizens can be bothered to vote ! This is not the fault of “Corporate America”, but a sign that the population feels disconnected from the political process, and politicians.
The fact that a general ennui, and disenchantment with “green political politics” has occurred in recent years, is not due to the effectiveness of sinister ” Big corporate propaganda”, but that the general population is losing interest in the “green” message.
The reasons for this taking place are not confined to the US. It’s a world wide phenomenon.
Desperate measure to silence any opponents of Green/Left politics, will not assist getting the message more widely accepted. The contrary is more likely to occur !
Inventing a new scapegoat, “corporate election funding” , to distract from a loss of interest in the leftist/green agenda, will backfire ! Although, initially popular, it will quickly become apparent that once again it’s just another irrelevant agenda, that won’t provide employment and economic growth.
That’s what that average citizen really cares about, what’s in it for them !
The US currently has a larger national debt, than it’s GDP ! Only corporate America can provide the wealth that small business needs to expand and provide employment. America can’t continue expanding the service sector (especially the taxpayer funded service sector).
Currently, the US is only able to service it’s debt, and service sector, by increasing borrowings.
These should be the big issues facing the American voter. Attempting to silence the wealth creators, the employers, the people and organizations whose taxes pay for all those government and service sector jobs, will not solve the problems facing US society.
What it will do, is further divide and promote a sort of class warfare, encouraging the general public to cry ”a pox on both your houses ” ! It will only result in a further erosion of faith in the democratic process.
Again with the ad hominem attack from an anonymous poster? My comment is said to be “disingenuous and mythical” – and yet the simple numbers are publicly available.
Here are a few more easily accessible numbers…
1) Merely 25% of the US population now identifies as Republican, but even among them…
2) 65% of Republicans believe rich people have more influence in elections.
3) 64% of Republicans believe public officials change their positions to appeal to donors.
As to the identity of the true “job creators” let one of the honest wealthy speak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4ErpJTb6c
https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en
Finally, let me just illustrate for readers that political bribery – whether legitimized and codified or not – is neither new nor reasonably doubted, in the US nor anywhere else. The naivete required to honestly believe otherwise is nothing short of stunning.
Our own history is plain on the subject…
For about seventy years after our nation was founded, each corporation was granted its charter – on pain of dissolution for any violation – under the following criteria: To maintain and adhere to a genuine purpose of public benefit; To limit itself to its original business concern, abstain from purchasing other corporations, and amass only a specified maximum of wealth; To exist for a nominal term of 20 years before applying to the legislature for renewal; To deal equitably with trading partners and competition.
…AND – pointedly – these companies were prohibited from lobbying, and from influencing any political campaigns.
“Corporate election funding” is not a “new invented scapegoat.” To anyone remotely familiar with our nation’s history and present circumstances, that assertion is laughable.