Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Corporate personhood and home rule will be topics of Boston-area forums

Members of the Boston/Cambridge and North Bridge Alliance chapters will be working on organizing two forums on two related issues: corporate personhood and reforming municipal home rule.

The corporate personhood forum will feature an introduction to the history of the usurpation of personhood rights by corporations, with a focus on the decision in "Citizens United v. FEC" and its potential impacts on our election system. Depending on the scope of the decision--which could be broad enough to imperil state-level campaign finance law--the forum will also emphasize actions that individuals and organizations can take to counter a ramped-up "pay-to-play" political system.

Home rule, the idea that localities should be able to pass and enforce laws without unreasonable interference from higher levels of government, was a featured topic of discussion in the recent "Democracy and Relocation" workshop that AfD'ers Dave Lewit and Ruth Caplan facilitated in Boston, and is key to rights-based campaigns, like the work of the Defending Water for Life project. When states or the federal government limit home rule, it means that decisions on local resource management, public health or other issues are turned over to legislators that are less responsive to constituent needs.

In Massachusetts, home rule law has short-changed the city of Boston, overruled local rent-control ordinances, and most recently made it difficult for one town to regulate noxious fumes from a local pig farm. Even legislators agree that the system needs an overhaul. Robust home rule enables a bottom-up strategy for fighting corporate rule.

Look for updates in future issues of the e-news and on the AfD blog.

Read more...

2009 end-of-year report

Here's the wrap-up on major chapter and national campaign activities for 2009--if you're not an AfD member, why not join now? A stronger democracy in 2010 should be on everyone's list of resolutions!

Contribute on-line here. If you'd like to join but can't afford to make a donation right now, please email the Alliance for Democracy at afd@thealliancefordemocracy.org.

2009 AfD Activity Report

Read more...

Monday, December 28, 2009

Corporate consolidation of our food--read and take action by December 31

Food and agriculture writer Jill Richardson, who blogs at lavidalocavore.org, offers a "take action" post on "how corporate consolidation affects many areas of our food supply, what that means for us, and how you can send in your comments to the Obama administration in the next few days (they are due by December 31)." Good information on the increasing lack of competition in the seed industry, and food production and distribution generally--check it out.

Read more...

What is corporate personhood?

What is corporate personhood and why is it so important whether institutions have personhood rights? Here's an excerpt from "The Santa Clara Blues: Corporate Personhood versus Democracy" by William Meyers, that lays out the history and the issues at stake. Follow the link to read the complete article.

In the United States of America all natural persons (actual human beings) are recognized as having inalienable rights. These rights are recognized, among other places, in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

Corporate personhood is the idea (legal fiction, currently with force of law) that corporations have inalienable rights (sometimes called constitutional rights) just like real, natural, human persons.

That this idea has the force of law both resulted from the power and wealth of the class of people who owned corporations, and resulted in their even greater power and wealth. Corporate constitutional rights effectively invert the relationship between the government and the corporations. Recognized as persons, corporations lose much of their status as subjects of the government. Although artificial creations of their owners and the governments, as legal persons they have a degree of immunity to government supervision. Endowed with the court-recognized right to influence both elections and the law-making process, corporations now dominate not just the U. S. economy, but the government itself.

Read the entire article here.

Read more...

Post Copenhagen: Cap & Trade primer

Is cap & trade carbon dealing a first step toward meeting the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or just the latest investment bubble scheme? This video, he Story of Cap & Trade, brought to you by the Story of Stuff folks, lays out the pitfalls inherent in marketing the right to pollute, from free emissions permits for big polluters, the difficulty in verifying that "offset" carbon represents a real reduction in emissions, free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and fraud, and distraction from real issues of economic justice. The film's a quick rundown on what cap and trade is all about, and where it will likely fall short of what's needed:

Read more...

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Weekend health care reads

Is opening Medicare to those 55 and up, as in one Senate proposal, a first step to Medicare for all? No, says Physicians for a National Health Plan founders Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, as part of a "Room for Debate" blog posted to the New York Times on Friday.

"Milk and lemon both taste good in tea. But mix them together and it’s a curdled mess. Similarly, the latest Senate health reform compromise combines two appetizing elements — a Medicare expansion and tighter insurance regulations –- to create a noxious brew," they write. Combine our tax dollars with a for-profit system that's consistently failed to deliver equitable care at anything approaching reasonable cost, and you get undigestible public policy. The 55+ Medicare policy simply siphons the older, sicker patients out of the mandated private insurance system, leaving younger, healthier people to generate private profit--a "hidden subsidy" for insurers.

"In the end," they write, "the Senate compromise, like its House counterpart, will do little to salvage the sinking U.S. health system. Costs will continue to skyrocket... driving the costs of taxpayer-funded subsidies through the roof. In contrast, a single payer system could save nearly $400 billion annually on health insurers’ overhead and the paperwork they inflict on doctors and hospitals -– savings that would make universal coverage affordable.

"Medicare for All won’t grow from the Senate compromise, but from its ashes."

Meanwhile, Donna Smith of the California Nurses Assocation and PDA's Healthcare Not Warfare campaign, notes that the Senate bill now allows insurance companies to cap payments for some catastrophic illnesses. The bill, said the AP, was "tweaked," leading Smith to comment: "No official or legal amendment required when the insurance industry needs a tweak they damn well get a tweak. And this is quite a tweak...Just hours ago, I continued to read reports that claimed our healthcare reformers in Congress were doing away with pre-existing condition clauses and also ending lifetime caps on coverage."

The fix starts, she says, when we "tweak back" in 2010 and 2012.

Read more...

Pictures from "The Water Is Ours Dammit: A Water Justice Art Exhibition"

Pictures of the works featured in the Portland, ME, exhibition, "The Water is Ours Dammit: A Water Justice Exhibition" are online here.

About the show, Defending Water for Life in Maine organizer Emily Posner writes:

Through multiple mediums we can manifest our dreams of what a world of water justice looks like. Defending Water for Life is developing an art exhibition to examine, confront and change the multiple facets of the world water crisis. From pollution to water inequity in the Global South, mega-dams, bottled water and privatization...the global community faces major challenges to meet our planet's water needs. Our first show was in Portland, Maine. Pieces from water struggles throughout the world were displayed. Communities fighting Nestle in Maine, Sacramento, Salida (Colorado), and Florida participated. Art from from Robert Shetterly, Brian Tripp, Natasha Mayers, Jimmy Descantes, Climbing PoeTree, Swoon, Rigo 23, Sarah Sutro, the Beehive Collective, Erin Wilson, Angel Putney, Rick Burns, Cynthia Howard, Aldo and Eric Ruin was also displayed. Our goal is to create an exhibit that can be shown in communities throughout the United States working for water equity.
Emily hopes to bring the show to Boston, as well as Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Read more...

Our leaders are staging a scam in Copenhagen

At the Copenhagen summit, rich countries' carbon trading schemes ensure that a corporatist and ultimately racist status quo is preserved, dooming nations, resources, and peoples in the developing world. This article outlines four out of many tricks the global north, lobbyists and multinationals play in order to retain profit and privilege.

by Johann Hari. Posted December 10 on The Huffington Post.

Every delegate to the Copenhagen summit is being greeted by the sight of a vast fake planet dominating the city's central square. This swirling globe is covered with corporate logos--the Coke brand is stamped over Africa, while Carlsberg appears to own Asia, and McDonald's announces "I'm loving it!" in great red letters above. "Welcome to Hopenhagen!" it cries. It is kept in the sky by endless blasts of hot air.

This plastic planet is the perfect symbol for this summit. The world is being told that this is an emergency meeting to solve the climate crisis--but here inside the Bela Centre where our leaders are gathering, you can find only a corrupt shuffling of words, designed to allow countries to wriggle out of the bare minimum necessary to prevent the unraveling of the biosphere.

Staggering across the fringes of the summit are the people who will see their countries live or die on the basis of its deliberations. Leah Wickham, a young woman from Fiji, broke down as she told the conference she will see her homeland disappear beneath the waves if we do not act now. "All the hopes of my generation rest on Copenhagen," she pleaded. Dazed Chinese and Indian NGOs explain how the Himalayan ice is rapidly vanishing and will be gone by 2035 - so the great rivers of Asia that are born there will shrivel and cease. They provide water for a quarter of humanity.

Mohammed Nasheed, the President of the drowning Maldives, said simply: "The last generation of humans went to the moon. This generation of humans needs to decide if it wants to stay alive on planet earth."

We know what has to happen to give us a fighting chance of avoiding catastrophe. We need carbon emissions in rich countries to be 40 percent lower than they were in 1990 - by 2020. We can haggle with each other over how to get there but we can't haggle with atmospheric physics over the end-goal: the earth's atmosphere has put this limit on what it can absorb, and we can respect it, or suffer.

Yet the first week of this summit is being dominated by the representatives of the rich countries trying to lace the deal with Enron-style accounting tricks that will give the impression of cuts, without the reality. It's essential to understand these shenanigans this week, so we can understand the reality of the deal that will be announced with great razzamataz next week.

Most of the tricks centre around a quirk in the system: a rich country can 'cut' its emissions without actually releasing fewer greenhouse gases. How? It can simply pay a poor country to emit less than it otherwise would have. In theory it sounds okay: we all have the same atmosphere, so who cares where the cuts come from?

But a system where emissions cuts can be sold among countries introduces extreme complexity into the system. It quickly (and deliberately) becomes so technical that nobody can follow it - no concerned citizen, no journalist, and barely even full-time environmental groups. You can see if your government is building more coal power stations, or airports, or motorways. You can't see if the cuts they have "bought" halfway round the world are happening - especially when they are based on projections of increases that would have happened, in theory, if your government hadn't stumped up the cash.

A study by the University of Stanford found that most of the projects that are being funded as "cuts" either don't exist, don't work, or would have happened anyway. Yet this isn't a small side-dish to the deal: it's the main course. For example, under proposals from the US, the country with by far the highest per capita emissions in the world wouldn't need to cut its own gas by a single exhaust pipe until 2026, insisting it'll simply pay for these shadow-projects instead.

It gets worse still. A highly complex system operating in the dark is a gift to corporate lobbyists, who can pressure or bribe governments into rigging the system in their favour, rather than the atmosphere's. It's worth going through some of the scams that are bleeding the system of any meaning. They may sound dull or technical - but they are life or death to countries like Leah's.

Trick One: Hot Air. The nations of the world were allocated permits to release greenhouse gases back in 1990, when the Soviet Union was still a vast industrial power - so it was given a huge allocation. But the following year, it collapsed, and its industrial base went into freefall - along with its carbon emissions. It was never going to release those gases after all. But Russia and the Eastern European countries have held onto them in all negotiations as "theirs". Now, they are selling them to rich countries who want to purchase "cuts." Under the current system, the US can buy them from Romania and say they have cut emissions - even though they are nothing but a legal fiction.

We aren't talking about climatic small change. This hot air represents ten gigatonnes of CO2. By comparison, if the entire developed world cuts its emissions by 40 percent by 2020, that will only take six gigatonnes out of the atmosphere.

Trick Two: Double-counting. This is best understood through an example. If Britain pays China to abandon a coal power station and construct a hydro-electric dam instead, Britain pockets the reduction in carbon emissions as part of our overall national cuts. In return, we are allowed to keep a coal power station open at home. But at the same time, China also counts this change as part of its overall cuts. So one ton of carbon cuts is counted twice. This means the whole system is riddled with exaggeration - and the figure for overall global cuts is a con.

Trick Three: The Fake Forests - or what the process opaquely dubs 'LULUCF' . Forests soak up warming gases and store them away from the atmosphere - so, perfectly sensibly, countries get credit under the new system for preserving them. It is an essential measure to stop global warming. But the Canadian, Swedish and Finnish logging companies have successfully pressured their governments into inserting an absurd clause into the rules. The new rules say you can, in the name of "sustainable forest management", cut down almost all the trees - without losing credits. It's Kafkaesque: a felled forest doesn't increase your official emissions... even though it increases your actual emissions.

Trick Four: Picking a fake baseline. All the scientific recommendations take 1990 as the dangerously high baseline we need to cut from. So when we talk about a 40 percent cut, we mean 40 percent less than 1990. But the Americans have - in a stroke of advertising genius - shifted to taking 2005 as their baseline. Everybody else is talking about 1990 levels, except them. So when the US promises a 17 percent cut on 2005 levels, they are in fact offering a 4 percent cut on 1990 levels - far less than other rich countries.

There are dozens more examples like this, but you and I would lapse into a coma if I listed them. This is deliberate. This system has been made incomprehensible because if we understood, ordinary citizens would be outraged. If these were good faith negotiations, such loopholes would be dismissed in seconds. And the rich countries are flatly refusing to make even these enfeebled, leaky cuts legally binding. You can toss them in the bin the moment you leave the conference center, and nobody will have any comeback. On the most important issue in the world - the stability of our biosphere - we are being scammed.

Our leaders are aren't giving us Hopenhagen - they're giving us Cokenhagen, a sugary feelgood hit filled with sickly additives and no nutrition. Their behaviour here - where the bare minimum described as safe by scientists isn't even being considered - indicates they are more scared of the corporate lobbyists that fund their campaigns, or the denialist streak in their own country, than of rising seas and falling civilizations.

But there is one reason why I am still - despite everything - defiantly hopeful. Converging on this city now are thousands of ordinary citizens who aren't going to take it any more. They aren't going to watch passively while our ecosystems are vandalized. They are demanding only what the cold, hard science demands - real and rapid cuts, enforced by a global environmental court that will punish any nation that endangers us all. This movement will not go away. Copenhagen has soured into a con - but from the wreckage, there could arise a stronger demand for a true solution.

If we don't raise the political temperature very fast, the physical temperature will rise - and we can say goodbye to Leah, and to the only safe climate we have ever known.

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent.

Read more...

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Corporate personhood time line

This timeline traces the history of how corporations accumulated personhood rights, and how certain persons considered less than human gained equal protection under the law. It was compiled by Jan Edwards (who also developed the Tapestry of the Commons presentation and radio spots), with much help from Doug Hammerstrom, Bill Meyers, Molly Morgan, Mary
Zepernick, Virginia Rasmussen, Thomas Linzey, Jane Anne Morris, and Richard Grossman. This is the 2002 revision. It's also available on the Reclaiming Democracy site, and, with commentary, on WILPF's website.

Corporate Personhood Timeline

Read more...

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show

Millions of people become ill annually due to dangerous concentrations of bacteria and chemicals in public drinking water systems. We believe the answer is not bottled water, but to fund infrastructure improvements and make access to water a human right. Look for info on chemical trespass ordinances in the article "Our Bodies, Our Environment," published in AfD's Justice Rising.

by Charles Duhigg. Published by the New York Times December 7

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added.

Water pollution has become a growing concern for some lawmakers as government oversight of polluters has waned. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in 2007 asked the E.P.A. for data on Americans’ exposure to some contaminants in drinking water.

The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state. In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority.

“There is significant reluctance within the E.P.A. and Justice Department to bring actions against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers,” said David Uhlmann, who headed the environmental crimes division at the Justice Department until 2007.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,” added Mr. Uhlmann, who now teaches at the University of Michigan law school. “And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.”

A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.
But scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems.

In response to inquiries submitted by Senator Boxer, the E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.

In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data.

But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.

But many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.

Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with. A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.

Despite the expected announcement of reforms, some mid-level E.P.A. regulators say they are skeptical that any change will occur.

“The same people who told us to ignore Safe Drinking Water Act violations are still running the divisions,” said one mid-level E.P.A. official. “There’s no accountability, and so nothing’s going to change.”

Griffin Palmer contributed reporting.

Read more...

Actions nationally tomorrow--health care as a human right

An alert from Healthcare-NOW!:

The Mobilization for Health Care for All is escalating the effort for real health care reform.

This Thursday, on International Human Rights Day, the Mobilization will have 18 actions in 13 states and Washington, DC. We are making the point that health care is a human right - that means everyone should have access to health care.

This is not just a nebulous right, but a life and death issue. We all know that 45,000 people die in the United States because of lack of access to health care. And, we know that more than a million have gone bankrupt due to health care problems. If we met the human rights standard of providing health care to all then these problems would diminish greatly.

These Mobilization actions will urge support for Sen. Bernie Sander's single payer amendment. And, we are also telling the senate to allow states to put in place a state-level single payer system. We know improved Medicare for All is the solution to the health crisis in America and we will continue to advocate for it.

Please support our efforts. We are not going to give-up and accept the inadequate bills being considered in Congress. The problems in American health care will continue even if the best of these bills pass. We know that in order to get real health care reform that ongoing organizing will be essential.

Read more...

AfD's Single Payer Home Page


Single Payer


We won't give up the fight for Single Payer!

  • Read Alliance press releases here.
  • Get active: Check out the latest action alerts here.
  • Follow the real story in independent media, here.
  • NEW! Watch video reports and commentary here.
  • Justice Rising's issue on the healthcare crisis is available online here.
  • Download material for tabling, outreach and education here.

What are you doing--locally, at the state level, nationally--to fix our healthcare system? Let us know at afd@thealliancefordemocracy.org!

Read more...

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show

Potentially carcinogenic quantities of dry-cleaning solvents and radioactive material are only two of the toxins found in an alarmingly high number of America's public drinking water systems. The solution is not bottled water--the solution is to fight chemical trespass, fund public infrastructure, and clean up this mess.

by Charles Duhigg. Published December 7 by The New York Times

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added.

Water pollution has become a growing concern for some lawmakers as government oversight of polluters has waned. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in 2007 asked the E.P.A. for data on Americans’ exposure to some contaminants in drinking water.

The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state. In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority.

“There is significant reluctance within the E.P.A. and Justice Department to bring actions against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers,” said David Uhlmann, who headed the environmental crimes division at the Justice Department until 2007.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,” added Mr. Uhlmann, who now teaches at the University of Michigan law school. “And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.”

A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.
But scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems.

In response to inquiries submitted by Senator Boxer, the E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.

In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data.

But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.

But many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.

Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with. A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.

Despite the expected announcement of reforms, some mid-level E.P.A. regulators say they are skeptical that any change will occur.

“The same people who told us to ignore Safe Drinking Water Act violations are still running the divisions,” said one mid-level E.P.A. official. “There’s no accountability, and so nothing’s going to change.”

Griffin Palmer contributed reporting.

Read more...

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Corporate Personhood


Corporate Personhood


A broad Supreme Court decision on behalf of the appellant in "Citizens United v. FEC" could allow corporations to make unlimited contributions to outside groups during elections, and potentially overturn campaign finance laws in more than twenty states.

Bookmark this page and check back for updates and our statement on the upcoming decision, which could come as early as December 9, 2009. Until then, see posts on our blog for:

  • Information and links on the Citizens United case and the issue of corporate personhood
  • Analysis and observations from the media
  • Video on the case and implications for democracy

Read more...

Two thirds of Americans support Medicare for All

Physicians for a National Health Plan blogger Dr. Andrew Coates has posted the first installment of a six part series on the "yes but" attitude toward health care reform, as in "yes, single payer is the most economic and equitable way of structuring health care, but we don't have the votes... the industry would never allow it... people don't want it..." and other arguments put forward by groups like MoveOn and Health Care for American Now.

The series focuses on research on American attitudes about single-payer, which, says series author Kip Sullivan, demonstrates that "approximately two-thirds of Americans support a Medicare-for-all system despite constant attacks on Medicare and the systems of other countries by conservatives. The evidence supporting this statement is rock solid."

Sullivan explores "citizen jury" research that showed overwhelming support for single payer health care going back to the early nineties. Polling data is reviewed, too, as are the arguments made by public option only groups as to why the public is purportedly on their side. The last segment discusses "the wisdom of allowing polls and focus group research to dictate policy and strategy," a good question when so much public information on the issues comes from pro-corporate media.

Read more...

A look at the impact on state campaign finance reform laws of a broad decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Comment by Daniel Meek, an Oregon attorney who spoke on this case at the recent AfD Portland regional convention.

by Jess Bravin. Posted at the Wall Street Journal Online December 8

Montana voters, fed up with the grip of out-of-state mining interests on local politicians, passed an initiative in 1912 banning corporate spending on candidates for state office. As soon as Tuesday, that law -- and similar ones in nearly half the states -- could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court for infringing corporations' free-speech rights.


None of those state laws specifically were at issue when the court agreed to hear Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which challenged provisions of the federal McCain-Feingold Act. The 2002 law built on a longstanding ban on direct corporate giving to House, Senate and presidential candidates by reining in so-called issue advertisements, such as television spots a corporation takes out on its own to help a particular politician's election or defeat.

Under the law, corporations and unions may not use general funds for such advertisements within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Instead, they must channel their electioneering through political action committees that solicit contributions from executives, employees, shareholders and other affiliates of the corporation.

The case initially involved a feature-length movie attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, produced by a conservative advocacy group chartered as a nonprofit corporation. But instead of delivering an opinion after March arguments, the Supreme Court in June ordered re-argument on a much broader question: Should prior cases that upheld restrictions on corporate independent expenditures be overruled?

In 1990, the court voted 6-3 to uphold the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which, like the McCain-Feingold provision, required corporations to raise funds through political action committees for their electioneering efforts, rather than draw from profits or general treasuries.

The majority opinion by Justice Thurgood Marshall observed that states confer on corporations various tax and legal advantages that make it easier to do business and accumulate money. The act "reduces the threat that huge corporate treasures amassed with the aid of favorable state laws will be used to influence unfairly the outcome of elections...while also allowing corporations to express their political views" through political action committees, Justice Marshall wrote in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

States initially took little interest in the Citizens United case. When the Supreme Court said it might overrule Austin, however, Anthony Johnstone, the Montana state solicitor, saw a threat to his state's nearly century-old campaign finance laws. He and the Arizona solicitor general circulated a friend-of-the-court brief to other states, and 24 added their names.

The 1912 voter initiative "has allowed Montana to have a political sphere that isn't dominated by the one or two companies that dominated it in its early, post-territorial days," said Mr. Johnstone. Back then, the Anaconda company, a mining trust whose founders included William Randolph Hearst's father, George Hearst, exerted outsize influence on the state.

Montana remains sparsely populated, and holding down corporate spending prevents outside commercial interests from overly influencing the elections in a state where a small amount of money can go a long way, Mr. Johnstone said. "Each state really needs to have the flexibility to adapt to its own circumstances," he said.

David Primo, a political scientist at the University of Rochester, agreed that overturning Austin would "reshape the political landscape" in more than 20 states. But he said that doing so would be "very healthy for democracy."

Prof. Primo, who signed a friend-of-the-court brief urging that the restrictions be lifted, said he has seen "no evidence that corruption or the appearance of corruption has been reduced or the democratic process improved" by such regulations. He said some states with reputations for clean government, such as Oregon and Vermont, don't restrict independent corporate expenditures.

If Austin is overturned, the impact probably will be felt strongest in states with "very aggressive politics," said Raymond La Raja, a political-science professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

The Michigan law that prompted the 1990 Supreme Court ruling was enacted in the 1970s after the Watergate scandal. Because corporations didn't like to associate their own names with political causes, they gave money to the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which then spent it to back pro-business candidates.

As a test case, the chamber took out a newspaper advertisement backing a Republican candidate for the state House in 1985. The candidate was successful, but the advertisement became the center of the high court's case.

The Democrat who lost the race, Robert Kolt, was a television reporter making his one and only run for office. Now a public-relations and political consultant in Lansing, Mr. Kolt said loopholes -- such as a narrow definition of what counts as an electioneering ad -- helped companies continue to spend heavily to influence elections in Michigan.

"Large organizations find a way to do what they want to do," Mr. Kolt said, calling his case "for the most part a bump in the road."

Read more...

Monday, December 7, 2009

Democratic Power Players Push for Public Financing of Congressional Elections

"It takes a major scandal to create a major reform," says Sen. Dick Durbin. Will Citizens United v. FEC be scandal enough to provide popular impetus for a national clean elections system? Note: The links in the story take you to OpenSecret's reports on the politicians and organizations cited.


by Michael Beckel. Posted December 7 on OpenSecrets.org's Capital Eye blog

Might a decision by the Supreme Court to allow unlimited corporate expenditures during elections whet congressional appetite for public financing?

On Friday, two high-ranking Democratic lawmakers predicted that yes, it might.

"If members of Congress think the Supreme Court has tipped the scales so much that they don't have a fighting chance... maybe they will be open to [our proposal for public financing]," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.

Durbin, along with House Majority Whip John Larson (D-Conn.), spoke at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress in Washington. They are the lead sponsors of legislation to create public financing for congressional races, known as the Fair Elections Now Act.

Their bill, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 1826 and as S. 752 in the Senate, would create a voluntary public financing system for congressional candidates. To qualify, participants would be required to raise a minimum threshold of dollars from a certain number of in-state donors who could contribute no more than $100 to a candidate's war chest.

The amount of public financing would be uniform for House races and tied to a state's population for Senate races. Supporters say the formula should provide enough money for most any candidate to run a competitive campaign. Durbin said the formula would provide candidates with a "fighting chance."

"Can you be outspent? Of course you can," Durbin said. "Having all the money in the world doesn't guarantee success. If you have an operative amount of money... you can succeed even if someone is outspending you."

Durbin said their legislation would release lawmakers and candidates from the burden of using "every waking moment begging for money."

Larson agreed, saying many members of Congress would rather legislate and help constituents than fund-raise.

"The best place I go to enlist people [to co-sponsor my bill] is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee office when they are dialing for dollars," Larson said.

The bill now has five co-sponsors in the Senate and 119 in the House, including supporters from across the aisle in Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Todd Platts (R-Penn.).

Larson also praised the small-donor aspect of the legislation as a way to free lawmakers from being beholden to special interests and permit them to be bolder and more aggressive on political issues.

"We believe the answer is grassroots involvement," he said. "President Barack Obama demonstrated that it could be done."

The focus on small donors, he continued, would make the public feel "like they are part of a system that works."

They also noted that Obama had co-sponsored a prior version of this legislation when he served in the Senate, but added that they had not yet pushed the White House to determine where campaign finance reforms ranks among its priorities. (During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama raised significant sums and momentum from donors who contributed less than $200, and he also became the first presidential candidate in modern history to opt out of public financing for the general election.)

Durbin also noted that momentum in reforming any hot-button issue -- including federal campaign finance laws -- is often difficult to achieve without a significant impetus.

"It takes a major scandal to create a major reform," he said.

Some momentum, Durbin and Larson said, may come from a Supreme Court ruling in its major campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

As Capital Eye has previously reported, the case has the potential to allow corporations, trade associations and unions to contribute unlimited amounts of money to outside groups for independent expenditures in the run-up to elections, something prohibited by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

The Supreme Court originally heard oral arguments in March and heard expanded arguments in September. An opinion could be issued this month.

Capital Eye asked Durbin if a ruling that opened the floodgates to increased independent expenditures might keep lawmakers from signing onto his bill out of a fear of not having enough money to compete against blitzes of outside ads.

"There's only so much water you can put in a bucket," Durbin told Capital Eye. "I think I'll have enough to get my message out [under this proposed system]."

The legislation would also prohibit joint fund-raising committees between candidates and parties, but it would not restrict the fund-raising of national party committees like the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or their Republican counterparts.

Capital Eye also asked Durbin if political giving to these committees might increase if the Fair Elections Now Act were passed. He dismissed the likelihood of that outcome.

Senators, like himself, may still raise money for the DNC or DSCC, Durbin said, but by and large, lawmakers and candidates would be liberated from fund-raising pressures and have more time to focus on the issues if this bill were enacted.

Read more...

Old-school action--times one million--for single payer

If you have ten or fifteen minutes a month to give to the campaign for single payer, check out Medicare for All and their "Million Letters for Health Care" campaign.

The goal is to sign up one million people to send one good old fashioned snail mail letter a month to their Representative. (According to the website, it takes just 5 to 7 days for your congressperson to get a letter. This is news to us, and apparently to several reps whose websites discourage mailing letters, but we're trusting the campaigners.)

Organizers say the massive mailing will establish political will for single payer. Participation is easy: Pick your representative, receive a letter by email to print and mail, personalize it with a note if you choose. To keep things simple and to go for the most accountable members of Congress, organizers are just concentrating on the House, not the Senate. To learn more, visit the campaign website.

Read more...

Maine Fair Trade Campaign meets

AfD national council member and Downeast chapter coordinator Bonnie Preston writes:

The Maine Fair Trade Campaign had a very successful annual meeting today with lunch catered by Local Sprouts Cooperative, a caterer that uses entirely local, organic food. Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME-2nd) was there to accept a "Fair Trade Champion" award, which he assures us will go on his office wall. Alliance for Democracy, through Nancy Price, generously donated two of the Seattle ponchos to help MFTC fund-raise. One poncho was awarded to Matt Schlobom, the original coordinator of MFTC, now working for the Maine AFL-CIO as Public Policy and Political Mobilization Director. (Matt also got a Fair Trade Champion award.) The other was raffled off through an equity raffle and raised $128--not an insignificant amount for our small group.

Daphne Loring, MFTC's current coordinator, thanked the AfD council for this and all of the support MFTC has gotten from Alliance for Democracy. Daphne asked me to present the award and poncho to Matt, so AfD was featured in a way at the meeting.

Rep. Michaud told us that he has been invited to Europe to speak to European Union leadership about the TRADE Act. He said the issues addressed in the act are of concern all over the world.

Read more...

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Single payer to Senate floor--call to support Amendment 2837 now!

Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, filed Amendment 2837 to the Senate health reform bill. The Amendment creates a universal single payer health care system. The amendment was co-sponsored by Sen. Roland Burris (D-Il) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

The vote on the measure could take place very soon, so it's urgent that you call your Senators to demand they join you in supporting Sanders's amendment and single payer health care.

The amendment delivers care through a single non-profit public funding agency, and is based on Sanders's single payer bill, S. 703. The amendment allows patient choice of doctor or hospital, coverage for dental care, mental health services and prescription drugs, and fully funds community health centers.

The program will be paid for by combining current government health care spending with new payroll and income taxes, which will total less than what most businesses and individuals currently pay for private insurance premiums and/or out of pocket expenses.

Call, email, or fax your senators in support of 2387.You can reach the Capitol Switchboard toll free at 866-220-0044, or email from this page on Change.org.

Remember that actions in support of single payer health care, including sit-ins at some senate district offices, are being planned for Human Rights Day, December 10, by Mobilization for Health Care for All. If there's one near you, be there! If you're far from the halls of power, speak truth to your neighbors by writing a letter to the editor of your local paper. See this page for info on the Sanders Amendment, this great piece by Donna Smith of Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign for inspiration, and our Health Care Truths and Myths brochure for the facts on single payer health care.

Read more...

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

"Technical difficulties" update

Our website is back on its virtual feet, but we'll be testing and tweaking to make sure it's sound--if you notice anything not working, contact us: afd@thealliancefordemocracy.org

Read more...