Tag Archives: CLCV

GreenGov???

Back in 2010, the California League of Conservation Voters put up a GreenGov 2010 supporting Jerry Brown.  It is still up: http://greengov2010.org/

Given Brown’s lack of performance on the issues of water and fracking, I wonder how happy CLCV is with their candidate now.  From my vantage, the most recent problems surround the Brown Administration’s being hell bent for leather to find one way or another to put a couple of tunnels under the Sacrament Delta.  That trades saving about a dozen homes for a 5 year disruption to the Sandhill Crane reserve and nesting grounds.  It still means that 19 homes will be lost.  

Brown’s lackey, Jerry Meral, wants to paint this as an improvement?  What does CLCV think?  I know the Restore the Delta position.  

The non-partisan CLCV

I keep getting emails from Susan Rose, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters.  Most of them ask me to take some action that I agree with.  The rest ask for money to support what they are doing.  They all claim to be non-partisan.  But, if the CLCV is non-partisan, have they ever endorsed a candidate who is NOT a Democrat?

I ask this question because I don’t think that the Democratic Party anywhere is going to pay the attention to the environment that we deserve until Democrats start losing elections for that failure. There are some who start off in the right direction: Jared Huffman, Fran Pavley, but in the end they get out of their special interest and just join the rest of the crowd.  

I have even seen Sierra Club endorsements of a Green, but not CLCV. What would it take for the CLCV to actually endorse a Green?  Maybe, is they made such an endorsements and backed it up with publicity, it would actually have an effect on Democratic Policy.  

Which is the Worst Oil Company of them All?

There are so many ways to assess which oil company is truly the worst of the worst. It also depends on the day. You’ve got ExxonMobil who not only caused the infamous oil spill at Alaska’s Prince William Sound but is also one of the world’s biggest funders of the global warming denial campaign. You’ve got BP –who not only caused the greatest man-made environmental disaster in history, but negotiated a settlement that does not properly compensate the victims of the spill. Still, in California, it’s hard to compete with Chevron.

If you watched the Republican National Convention and/or the Democratic National Convention, you probably saw endless Chevron greenwashing commercials. If you listen to the radio on your way to work, their advertisements run on every major station. Their "We Agree" campaign focuses on making them seem like a socially responsible business trying to do right for America. Yes, they care about profits, but their business is really all about helping everyday people meet their energy needs. Oh, and don’t worry about their fracking operations –they would never try to extract natural gas unless it was completely safe and foolproof. Um… right. In Chevron We Trust.

But what makes Chevron truly heinous is all of the campaigning they try to do outside of the public view. Unbeknownst to the public, Chevron (along with their pro-corporate allies) spend millions of dollars every election cycle to attack pro-environmental, progressive candidates. For the last decade, CLCV and our allies in the California Alliance have successfully defended our candidates and defeated theirs in no small part by revealing to voters who exactly is funding the opposition campaign. Guess what? Voters don’t like it when Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Insurance, and Wall Street Banksters try to buy an election. But while we’re successful about 75% of the time, Chevron and its allies still win 25% of their campaigns and have refined their tactics to be more deceptive and tough to beat.

Overtime, these large corporations have created PACs with innocuous sounding names mislead voters into thinking they’re something other than large corporate front groups. This includes groups like JobsPAC, the California Now Independent Expenditure PAC (which is often confused with the respected California National Organization of Women [NOW] PAC), California Alliance for Progress & Education (which sounds much like us and our partners’ California Alliance), Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy, and the Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, which is primarily funded by health insurance companies.

For your convenience, I've linked all of their Secretary of State Campaign Disclosure pages, so you can see exactly who funds these groups. The first thing you may notice is that they're not funded by individuals and they tend to receive money from each other. Why? Because these groups allow a corporation like Chevron to contribute money to one PAC, and then have it transferred elsewhere from that PAC to another so that when voters receive mail from Alliance for California's Tomorrow and go to research who funded the PAC, all they see are contributors that have other innocuous sounding names completely unaware of what entities are behind it all.

The newest front group is called the California Senior Advocates League. You may be surprised to learn that it has nothing to do with seniors. The Ventura County Star’s Timm Herdt has been particularly focused on revealing just how deceptive a group this is:

If you think a group with a name like that is concerned about Medicare, think again. It's an outfit funded by the National Association of Realtors, Chevron, Philip Morris, Anthem Blue Cross, the California Chamber of Commerce and others. It focuses on state legislative races, and attempting to track its money is no easy task.

I sought to do so during the primary election campaign, and found myself doing a maneuver I called the "Chevron Four Step." It went like this: Chevron gives $375,000 to JobsPAC, which then gives $250,000 to the California Now Independent Expenditure Committee, which then gives $220,000 to the California Senior Advocates League, which then spends $400,000 on state Senate races.

As always, we have our work cut out for us to fight back and campaign for our candidates, but all of this stresses just how badly we need real campaign finance reform. Even Assemblymember Julia Brownley’s Disclose Act, which would have required improved campaign contribution disclosures met heavy opposition that lobbied hard to kill the bill in the legislature. Ten guesses who some of the bills biggest opponents were.

UPDATE: CLCV Says Hahn’s “Flip-Flop-Flip” on Oil Severance Tax Factored In Bowen Endorsement

In an interview with the LA Weekly, California League of Conservations Voter SoCal director, David Algood, expanded on his organization’s decision to back Debra Bowen over her rival Janice Hahn.


“Debra has a much longer record on the environment,” said David Allgood, CLCV’s Southern California director. “We know her to be a leader that doesn’t knuckle under to pressure from special interests.”

Allgood said the League had taken note of Hahn’s flip-flop-flip on the L.A. oil severance tax. She proposed the tax last fall, before changing her mind and trying to keep it off the ballot. When it went on the ballot anyway, she then supported it. (It narrowly failed.)

“One of the things we considered was the ability of somebody to put their finger in the wind and change positions that quickly,” Allgood said. “For her to have one position one day and the opposite position the next — that was a big concern.”

Back on March 4th, I ran a story on Venice For Change about Hahn’s “flip-flop-flip”, on Measure O, the ballot initiative to tax oil taken from within LA City limits she was for before she was against it before she was for it.

Responding to reports in Venice For Change and also at Calitics, Janice Hahn apparently tried to rewrite history in regards to Measure O, the oil severance tax she opposed putting before voters for the March 8th special election.

The City Maven wesbsite report that Hahn  reversed her position again on Measure O, releasing a statement in support.


“I’ve always supported an oil extraction tax, and I continue to support it. In fact, during my recent campaign for lieutenant governor, I proposed a statewide oil extraction fee to help fund higher education,” Hahn said. “I support Measure O. I proposed Measure O. I will vote for Measure O. I hope Measure O passes.”

Quibbling with the past, Hahn went on to say that her no vote was out of an abundance of concern regarding voter turnout.

“I supported placing Measure O on a regular election ballot where turnout and participation is higher and it would have a greater likelihood of passing. I opposed placing it on the March ballot because turnout is substantially lower and less representative of the electorate as a whole,” Hahn said.

According to City Maven, a review of of the November 17th council meeting shows there was no mention of voter turnout in regards to the oil tax. At the time, Hahn was quoted as saying,


“I’ve reconsidered this and I have heard from various business groups who do feel like this might be the wrong climate to put this on the ballot. We know the oil companies are probably going to mount a massive campaign to defeat this and at the end of the day, the way we’ve structured it, really would only generate around $2 million to the city of Los Angeles. So, at this time, it is my recommendation that we don’t put this forward on the ballot.”

KCET reports that the measure is opposed by the California Independent Petroleum Association,, which has lobbied extensively to expand offshore drilling off the coast of California and in ANWAR, opposes Cap and Trade, and any limits to hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”), a controversial and dangerous means of natural gas extraction made famous by the HBO movie, “Gasland”

According the KCET, CIPA has given more than $400,000 to California candidates from 2001 to 2010. Sixty-two percent of those candidates were Republicans.

Some of Measure O’s opponents have gone on to endorse Janice Hahn in her bid to win the Congressional seat vacated by Jane Harman.

Measure O was narrowly defeated in the March 8 special election.

California League of Conservation Voters Endorses Debra Bowen for Congress

When people think “California League of Conservation Voters” they focus on the words “California” and “conservation.” And rightfully so. First and foremost, CLCV is the political arm of the environment. For nearly four decades, we have worked tirelessly to seek out and endorse environmental champions and then fund and support their campaigns to help them get into office. This has always been a primary part of our mission.

But every now and again we find a candidate who is not only an environmental champion but also demonstrates leadership in another critical piece of our mission: aiding voters. For the special election in Congressional District 36, we’re lucky to have found such a candidate, and it’s none other than Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

Secretary Bowen has a long track record of expertise and leadership on the environment. During her fourteen years serving in both houses of the Legislature, Bowen authored bills to protect our coast and restrict offshore oil drilling. She also co-authored four landmark environmental laws including the first bills in California to ever address global warming, environmental justice, and create a renewable portfolio standard. She also aided Senator Alan Lowenthal with his critical legislation to clean-up pollution in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

At a time when Congress is not only lacking environmental leadership but when the majority has become downright hostile towards any attempt to protect open spaces, improve public health, and protect clean air and water, Bowen will be a needed breath of fresh air in Washington.

In fact, if protecting the environment alone was the only reason to send Secretary Bowen to Washington, it would be enough. But electing her to Congress would also add an incredibly important leader in the field of fair elections and open government. While her environmental work has been notable, Secretary Bowen’s single most important piece of legislation was arguably AB 1462, the landmark law that made all of California’s bill information available on the Internet. A voter can easily find out how his or her legislator voted on any piece of legislation because of this bill, so if you’re following any piece of legislation online as it works its way through the California Legislature at the Senate and Assembly websites, you have Debra Bowen to thank for it.

Secretary Bowen also has a record of holding corporations accountable. Bowen was chair of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee during the height of the infamous Enron scandal. She was one of the lawmakers leading the charge against Kenneth Lay and Enron and investigating their manipulation of the energy market. Only too recently, Massey Energy and BP ignored safety violations that caused unparalleled environmental disasters and cost lives. We need a legislator who is smart, full of integrity, and has a track record of standing up against corrupt and powerful polluters and hold them accountable. We have such a leader in Debra Bowen.

This is why CLCV is thrilled to endorse Debra Bowen for Congress, and why we will do everything we can to make sure Debra Bowen goes to Washington. Join us by committing to support Debra Bowen for Congress here.

CLCV

The California League of Conservation Voters has once again proven itself to be the mouthpiece for Demcoratic Incumbents. A more appropriate name for this organization might be the Conservation League of Democratic Party.

Nothing underscores this more than the manner in which they have lauded Sen. Feinstein with her 100% score, as pointed out by Dan Bacher.  

Feinstein has taken a long list of environmental issue, dressed a solution to look like a bipartisan compromise, and watched it fail.  This includes the compromise that she negotiated on the Headlands Redwoods Forest which benefited family friend Charles Hurwitz and allowed him to defraud the people of California of $ Millions.  Now, we have her acting on behalf of another family friend, Stewart Resnick, who is also becoming rich at the expense of the tax payers of California, positioning himself and his Water Bank to cash in.

NOTE to self: Start a campaign to change State / Fed law so that anyone, or any corporation, securing subsidized water for agriculture must return any profits made on the sale to that water to the State or Federal Government. Taxpayers take the risk. Taxpayers should get the profits.

Feinstein can not even get the story straight.  She talks of job loss in the San Joaquin Valley, but the LA Times unmasks that fiction. In her latest releases, she tries to draw a parallel between the situation in CA and that in NM earlier in this decade century.  However, John Fleck, who lived those events in NM, points out that DiFi is re-writing history.  A Feinstein press release is beginning to read like the script to a Sean Hannity segment on Fox.  

One of the implications for Sen. Boxer is whether the Sr. Senator from CA is going to get enough environmental votes upset that it will carry over to Boxers 2010 campaign or will she have to separate herself from Feinstein.   I don’t think that even top scorecard from CLCV will be enough to rescue Feinstein’s reputation.  

“Smokestack Steve” and “Monoxide Meg?” AB 32 Attacks Continue

Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor’s race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).

Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman’s announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called “jobs” initiative” (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.

Poizner’s and Whitman’s attacks on California’s landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: “Smokestack Steve” and “Monoxide Meg.”

It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state’s natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to “Build a Greener Governor” (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.

This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.  

As readers of Calitics probably know, a version of the initiative, AB 118 (Logue) was just rejected on Monday by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

As Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), described in a piece that appeared this week in the California Progress Report:

“[T]he Assembly Natural Resources Committee rejected AB 118, legislation that would have overturned California’s landmark global warming law that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Not only would AB 118 have jeopardized public health and the environment, it would have imposed economic harm at a time when California is already struggling to regain our financial footing…”

“This bill, gutted and amended just this week, was part of a statewide campaign to stymie California’s economic recovery and deny workers the opportunity to benefit from the emerging new energy economy. [Assemblyman Dan] Logue, along with Rep. Tom McClintock and the association founded by Paul Gann, have filed an initiative nearly identical to AB 118 with the California Attorney General’s office with the intention of circulating it for signatures to qualify for the November 2010 general election…”

“Suspension of AB 32, the State’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, would cause economic distress and create an uncertain business environment for thousands of California employers who have played by the rules by investing in clean technology, setting up training programs, retooling equipment and taking other actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stimulate the economy.”

Foes of AB 32 will continue to strategize a way to kill it – whether it’s by a governor’s executive order, legislation or a ballot initiative. CLCV and environmental partners are fending off these attacks by joining with our allies in labor, public health, consumer protection, and sustainable/progressive business communities to move our state in the right direction, by building a greener governor, a greener legislature, and a greener California. One easy step each of us can take is visit http://www.greengov2010.org/, sign up as an environmental champion and start adding our voices to the debate.

‘Tis the season of scorecards

‘Tis the season of scorecards.  First we had the California League of Conservation Voters, then the Sierra Club California.  Now Capital Weekly has produced one that purports to measure the voting performance of the state legislature on a Conservative – Liberal continuum.

Some comments below the fold.

It is interesting that the oft maligned (at least on Calitics) Able Maldonado has a more liberal voting record than several Democrats… notably Roderick Wright and Gloria Negrete McLeod.  That is a likely reflection on the makeup of their districts. That confirms the CW bias for contested districts and centrist legislators.

For all of its imperfections, once again, we found this scorecard to be a worthy exercise. Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” are crude political shorthand, but we think the results give a pretty fair representation of the ideological makeup of the Assembly and Senate.

Also, our scorecard reflects what most Capitol observers know to be true: Democrats in contested districts like Alyson Huber and Lou Correa earn more centrist marks than those lawmakers in more solid, partisan districts.

As for the environmental scorecards, the two major ones scored differently.  In some cases, they took the same position. e.g. AB 64.  Others, they were on opposite sides of the questions, most notably on the Special Session Water Legislation, where the Sierra Club scored SBX7.1 and SBX7.2 (oppose) and the CLCV did not include it.  Since this was the most publicly fought over ecological legislation of the year, it looks like the CLCV took the political stance of ducking hard choices, though they have put a lot of energy into promoting those two bills.

Typical of the results was a 100% score from the CLCV for Jared Huffman (AD-6) while the Sierra Club only gave him 12/15, reflecting his strong support of the water legislation.  

Green Gov Poll

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.