Was having an internet connectivity issue that’s fixed now.
Brother, can you spare a time? Progressive bloggers like me put in an enormous amount of effort into bringing you the news so often obscured or omitted from the corporate media. Is that worth something to you? If it is, and you can afford to do so, please make a donation!
If you can’t see the Paypal buttons, click here!
In an odd turn of events, it looks like the federal judge who ruled that corporations could give directly to candidates might want to revoke his ruling. It appears that he was unaware of a Supreme Court ruling on the same issue:
James C. Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia indicated in an order issued Tuesday that he’s considering whether his ruling ignored Supreme Court rulings in 2003 (FEC v. Beaumont) and 1997 (Agostini v. Felton) which upheld the ban on corporate donations.
Cacheris requested that both federal prosecutors and lawyers representing two businessmen whoallegedly reimbursed their employees’ donations to Hilary Clinton file briefings on his decision by 5 p.m. Wednesday. He wants the briefings to be less than 10-pages in length and has scheduled a court hearing for Friday morning.
The judge based his 52-page ruling last week on the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in theCitizens United case.
“For better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech,” Cacheris had written. “Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within [campaign finance] limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing.”But his decision appears to have ignored a 2003 Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice David Souter, which held that “applying the prohibition to nonprofit advocacy corporations is consistent with the First Amendment.”
Wrote Souter: “not only has the original ban on direct corporate contributions endured, but so have the original rationales for the law. In barring corporate earnings from conversion into political “war chests,” the ban was and is intended to “preven[t] corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
When Obama announced this guy as his nominee for Commerce secretary, I knew his name sounded familiar – and not in a good way. I thought he had something to do with California energy scam, and he did. Your corporate media, of course, is describing him as an “environmentalist”:
Throughout most of the California electricity “crisis,” it has been difficult to find a story in the mainstream media that didn’t rely on one or more of these myths. The New York Times (1/25/01) summed up the inaccurate conventional wisdom: “Demand for electricity outpaced older power plants, while a botched experiment with partial price deregulation and longstanding environmental opposition combined to create disincentives to build new power plants or create cheaper wholesale prices through competition.”
Though it’s seldom noted in media accounts, California’s deregulation scheme was not forced upon the electric utilities, but was the brainchild of John Bryson, head of Southern California Edison. In 1996, Bryson’s attorneys drafted the current deregulation law (AB 1890), which was presented to and passed by the legislature within three weeks. Its premise was simple: If the ratepayers would hand the utilities up to $28.5 billion for nuclear reactor investments they said were “uncompetitive,” the utilities would give up their regulated monopolies and “compete” with other power producers.
One might expect the mastermind of California’s disastrous electrical experiment to be scrutinized by the press corps, but major media have given Bryson a facile free pass. “Everyone agrees there are no heroes in this California power crisis, and that it was brought on by good intentions and some bonehead decisions,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw began as he interviewed Bryson (1/26/01). But “bonehead” is far too kind a word for Bryson, who Brokaw described as “caught in the middle” of the crisis. In fact, as the key force behind the deregulation law, Bryson has been a major perpetrator.
After triumphing over Proposition 9, a 1998 ballot initiative backed by public interest and environmental groups that sought to roll back some of the deregulation scheme, Bryson and other utility leaders made a crucial miscalculation that has opened the door to a second mega-ripoff: They failed to freeze wholesale rates, which were deregulated in the early 1990s.
In the summer of 2000, the second shoe dropped: In a series of suspicious coincidences, a wave of shortages suddenly hit the California grid. Consumer prices in San Diego skyrocketed (the freeze there had been lifted because the local utility had received its full bailout). In the rest of the state, the utilities were caught in a vice of their own making, forced to sell power to consumers at frozen rates while being gouged by the power producers federal bureaucrats were refusing to regulate.
It was here that national media chimed in. The crisis, they said in virtual unison, was caused by a massive rise in electric demand, by the refusal of the environmental community to allow new power plants to be built, and by the cap on consumer rates which had been forced on the hapless utilities by a demanding public.
I had no idea that we signed a treaty decades ago that said Japan’s spent nuclear fuel rods would be stored here. Oops!
I’m almost afraid to pray for rain, considering what terrible storms we’re seeing elsewhere this year. But it’s been 88 or higher for more than a week, and I would love it if we got some relief.
My guest on Virtually Speaking Susie will be Marcy Wheeler, otherwise known as emptywheel from FDL. You can tune in at 9pm EST by clicking here. Call 646-200-3440 with questions or comments.
The Picadilly circus was supposed to perform in Joplin, MO but was canceled. The circus people decided to hang around and help, even the elephant:
The House leadership has agreed to a floor vote on a resolution that exercises the War Powers Act of 1973. This vote could end the illegal War in Libya.
The vote is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday June 1st.
It is urgent that you call your Congressperson and ask him or her
to vote YES on House Concurrent Resolution 51. You can look up your member of congress at the following link: