The rest of the world moves forward while the U.S. remains hostage to dirty energy, and folks like Koch.
Working together for a cleaner energy future, energy security and fostering policies that make sense for the future makes great sense.
From ENN --
Denmark Boasts a 100% Renewable Energy Community
Denmark, like, Germany, her neighbor to the south, is a country that takes renewable energy seriously. The wind energy industry alone in Denmark is booming with companies like Vestas and Siemens Wind Power both having production facilities and bases of operation on Danish soil. Denmark's own wind based energy also grows exponentially each year leaving many optimistic that the nation might be one of the few who can achieve 100% renewable energy in the next several decades. However, wind based renewable energy is not the only kind of clean energy the country has going for it. In one location, Denmark has proven that wind and hydrogen can be king when it comes to being green.
Called the Lolland Hydrogen Community, the project began in the middle of 2007 as a way of taking the excess wind energy produced by the island community and putting it to use. Since they were generating an impressive fifty percent more wind energy than was needed, they set about finding a way to convert that excess wind into hydrogen for use in powering the island and acting as way to demonstrate to Europe the viability of hydrogen as a renewable energy source
.
The way the project began was with the installation of a Fuel Cell Combined Heat and Power plant that took the wind energy that was being produced in excess and using it to power an electrolyser that worked to separate the oxygen and hydrogen molecules that comprised water. Once the hydrogen is separated it is stored in pressure tanks and it is then used to power fuel cells that provide the community with electricity.
Although powering the community’s power grid with the hydrogen fuel cells proved to be a success the Lolland Hydrogen Community knew they could take the renewable energy a step forward. To achieve this end, the researchers on the community developed smaller hydrogen fuel cells that could be placed in a home and act similar to a boiler in order to provide heating, air, and energy.
Article continues: http://blog.cleantechies.com/2010/12/29/denmark-boasts-100-renewable-energy-community/
Friday, December 31, 2010
Every once in a while ....
the two devoted readers of my blog get bored and require a bone to be tossed to rectify their boredom with a new topic. For the New Year, here goes --
Democracy for sale to the highest bidder!
In Money-Changers We Trust
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/in_money-changers_we_trust_20101228/
By Robert Scheer
Two years into the Obama presidency and the economic data is still looking grim. Don’t be fooled by the gyrations of the stock market, where optimism is mostly a reflection of the ability of financial corporations—thanks to massive government largesse—to survive the mess they created. The basics are dismal: Unemployment is unacceptably high, the December consumer confidence index is down and housing prices have fallen for four months in a row. The number of Americans living in poverty has never been higher, and a majority in a Washington Post poll said they were worried about making their next mortgage or rent payment.
In a parallel universe lives Peter Orszag, President Barack Obama’s former budget director and key adviser, who even faster than his mentor, Robert Rubin, has passed through that revolving platinum door linking the White House with Wall Street. The goal is to use your government position to advance the interests of your future employer, and Orszag and Rubin’s actions in the government and then at Citigroup provide stunning examples of the synergy between big government and high finance.
As Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary, Rubin presided over the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the New Deal legislation that would have prohibited the creation of the too-big-to-fail Citigroup. He was rewarded with a $15-million-a-year job at Citigroup, where he became a leader in the bank’s aggressive move into high-risk ventures. An SEC report in September claimed that Rubin as Citigroup chairman was aware that the bank failed to disclose $40 billion it held in subprime mortgages before the collapse.
During those years at Citigroup, Rubin financed the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, an economic policy program, and named Orszag, a Clinton economic adviser, as its director. The Hamilton Project continued to celebrate Rubin’s deregulation philosophy up to the point of utter embarrassment. Clearly, Orszag is not easily embarrassed, for upon taking his new job recently he boasted “I am pleased to be joining Citi, with its unmatched global platform and dedication to providing clients with service and advice.”
The most damning comment on this corrupt syndrome was offered by former Citigroup co-chief executive John Reed, who had worked with Rubin to get Glass-Steagall reversed and now is a sharp critic of the result. “We continue to listen to the same people whose errors in judgment were central to the problem,” Reed told Bloomberg News. “I’m astounded because we basically dropped the world’s biggest economy because of an error in bank management.” Reed estimated that the financial deregulation proposals contained in the Dodd-Frank bill and other reforms of the Obama administration represent only 25 percent of the change needed.
The failure to provide serious regulation of the financial industry to avoid future downturns is documented in devastating detail in that Dec. 28 Bloomberg report, written by Christine Harper: “The U.S. government, promising to make the system safer, buckled under many of the financial industry’s protests. Lawmakers spurned changes that would wall off deposit-taking banks from riskier trading. They declined to limit the size of lenders or ban any form of derivatives.”
The reason for that failure is obvious from the president’s choice of advisers featuring Rubin acolytes from the Clinton years. Harper writes: “While Obama vowed to change the system, he filled his economic team with people who helped create it,” referring to, among others, Timothy F. Geithner, who had gone from the Clinton Treasury Department to head the New York Fed, where he presided over the salvaging of Citigroup and AIG. As Obama’s treasury secretary he was quick to appoint a Goldman Sachs lobbyist as his chief of staff. Geithner’s subservience to Wall Street was reinforced by White House top economic adviser Lawrence Summers, Rubin’s deputy and then replacement in the Clinton administration who pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagall and fought against the regulation of derivatives.
And with the decisive assistance from both a Republican and Democratic president, all has worked out just as planned for the banks. Harper reports: “The last two years have been the best ever for combined investment-banking and trading revenue at Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Morgan Stanley, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.”
It’s all wonderfully bipartisan. Recently it was announced that Carlos Gutierrez, commerce secretary under George W. Bush, had been named to a high position at Citigroup. For President Obama, there’s no cause for worry about the loss of indispensable talent from his administration. Orszag’s replacement as head of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob J. Lew, was both a member of Rubin’s Hamilton Project and a former Citigroup executive—thus ensuring that government of the banks, by the banks, for the banks shall not perish from the Earth.
New consumer agency is frightfully necessary — and late
No one has missed the headlines: Haphazard and possibly illegal practices at mortgage-servicing companies have called into question home foreclosures across the nation.
The latest disclosures are deeply troubling, but they should not come as a big surprise. For years, both individual homeowners and consumer advocates sounded alarms that foreclosure processes were riddled with problems.
While federal and state investigators are still examining exactly what has gone wrong and why, two things are clear.
First, several financial services companies have already admitted that they used “robo-signers,” false declarations, and other workarounds to cut corners, creating a legal nightmare that will waste time and money that could have been better spent to help this economy recover. Mortgage lenders will spend millions of dollars retracing their steps, often with the same result that families who cannot pay will lose their homes.
Second, this mess might well have been avoided if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had been in place just a few years ago.
The new consumer agency is one of the signature accomplishments of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama this summer.
The new agency will take on oversight responsibilities that had been scattered among several federal agencies, and it will be a new cop on the beat that will end big loopholes in the regulatory system.
For the first time, banks and non-bank lenders (such as payday lenders, check cashers and mortgage brokers) will be subject to the same federal oversight to ensure that they are all playing by the same rules-no more turning sideways and slipping through the regulatory cracks.
Lost in much of the back-and-forth over wrongful foreclosures is the question of whether the scandal could have been prevented. The answer is yes.
The practices now under investigation took root and grew because there was no single federal regulator with both the responsibility and the tools to look out for consumers.
Had it existed, the new consumer agency could have stopped these problems before they multiplied. Many of the failures already admitted were not sophisticated scams that had been carefully concealed. By enforcing existing laws and involving state authorities early on, the agency could have made sure that the law was respected. No one would need to wonder whether the world of borrowing and lending works only one way: Families have to follow the legal rules, but the rules are optional for big banks.
Once it is fully operational, the new consumer agency will have supervisory authority over all large mortgage servicers. It will be able to examine them on a regular basis to make sure they follow the rules. If those servicers decide it is cheaper or faster to circumvent federal law, the consumer agency will have the tools to hold them accountable.
No one will be allowed to break the rules without triggering a strong and prompt federal response.
Currently, the federal interagency foreclosure task force, including the members of the Financial Services Oversight Council, is working along with the state Attorneys General to get to the bottom of these problems. The implementation team for the new consumer agency is also working to assemble and coordinate teams to deal with servicing and other issues.
These efforts are critical, but there is more work to do: We must ensure this kind of scandal-or some close cousin-does not happen again.
A mortgage is the biggest financial commitment most Americans will make in a lifetime, and the toll on Florida has been especially heavy and the need for oversight particularly apparent. A few weeks ago, I watched proceedings in a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure court and saw firsthand the painful outcomes for numerous families.
Unfair servicing practices can worsen a family’s already difficult economic situation, and the injury echoes from the family to the community and ultimately throughout the economy. Cops on the beat can stop problems before the damage spreads. If there ever was any doubt that the new consumer agency is necessary, the latest foreclosure developments should put that to rest.
Such a deal!
Democracy for sale to the highest bidder!
In Money-Changers We Trust
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/in_money-changers_we_trust_20101228/
By Robert Scheer
Two years into the Obama presidency and the economic data is still looking grim. Don’t be fooled by the gyrations of the stock market, where optimism is mostly a reflection of the ability of financial corporations—thanks to massive government largesse—to survive the mess they created. The basics are dismal: Unemployment is unacceptably high, the December consumer confidence index is down and housing prices have fallen for four months in a row. The number of Americans living in poverty has never been higher, and a majority in a Washington Post poll said they were worried about making their next mortgage or rent payment.
In a parallel universe lives Peter Orszag, President Barack Obama’s former budget director and key adviser, who even faster than his mentor, Robert Rubin, has passed through that revolving platinum door linking the White House with Wall Street. The goal is to use your government position to advance the interests of your future employer, and Orszag and Rubin’s actions in the government and then at Citigroup provide stunning examples of the synergy between big government and high finance.
As Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary, Rubin presided over the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the New Deal legislation that would have prohibited the creation of the too-big-to-fail Citigroup. He was rewarded with a $15-million-a-year job at Citigroup, where he became a leader in the bank’s aggressive move into high-risk ventures. An SEC report in September claimed that Rubin as Citigroup chairman was aware that the bank failed to disclose $40 billion it held in subprime mortgages before the collapse.
During those years at Citigroup, Rubin financed the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, an economic policy program, and named Orszag, a Clinton economic adviser, as its director. The Hamilton Project continued to celebrate Rubin’s deregulation philosophy up to the point of utter embarrassment. Clearly, Orszag is not easily embarrassed, for upon taking his new job recently he boasted “I am pleased to be joining Citi, with its unmatched global platform and dedication to providing clients with service and advice.”
The most damning comment on this corrupt syndrome was offered by former Citigroup co-chief executive John Reed, who had worked with Rubin to get Glass-Steagall reversed and now is a sharp critic of the result. “We continue to listen to the same people whose errors in judgment were central to the problem,” Reed told Bloomberg News. “I’m astounded because we basically dropped the world’s biggest economy because of an error in bank management.” Reed estimated that the financial deregulation proposals contained in the Dodd-Frank bill and other reforms of the Obama administration represent only 25 percent of the change needed.
The failure to provide serious regulation of the financial industry to avoid future downturns is documented in devastating detail in that Dec. 28 Bloomberg report, written by Christine Harper: “The U.S. government, promising to make the system safer, buckled under many of the financial industry’s protests. Lawmakers spurned changes that would wall off deposit-taking banks from riskier trading. They declined to limit the size of lenders or ban any form of derivatives.”
The reason for that failure is obvious from the president’s choice of advisers featuring Rubin acolytes from the Clinton years. Harper writes: “While Obama vowed to change the system, he filled his economic team with people who helped create it,” referring to, among others, Timothy F. Geithner, who had gone from the Clinton Treasury Department to head the New York Fed, where he presided over the salvaging of Citigroup and AIG. As Obama’s treasury secretary he was quick to appoint a Goldman Sachs lobbyist as his chief of staff. Geithner’s subservience to Wall Street was reinforced by White House top economic adviser Lawrence Summers, Rubin’s deputy and then replacement in the Clinton administration who pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagall and fought against the regulation of derivatives.
And with the decisive assistance from both a Republican and Democratic president, all has worked out just as planned for the banks. Harper reports: “The last two years have been the best ever for combined investment-banking and trading revenue at Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Morgan Stanley, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.”
It’s all wonderfully bipartisan. Recently it was announced that Carlos Gutierrez, commerce secretary under George W. Bush, had been named to a high position at Citigroup. For President Obama, there’s no cause for worry about the loss of indispensable talent from his administration. Orszag’s replacement as head of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob J. Lew, was both a member of Rubin’s Hamilton Project and a former Citigroup executive—thus ensuring that government of the banks, by the banks, for the banks shall not perish from the Earth.
New consumer agency is frightfully necessary — and late
No one has missed the headlines: Haphazard and possibly illegal practices at mortgage-servicing companies have called into question home foreclosures across the nation.
The latest disclosures are deeply troubling, but they should not come as a big surprise. For years, both individual homeowners and consumer advocates sounded alarms that foreclosure processes were riddled with problems.
While federal and state investigators are still examining exactly what has gone wrong and why, two things are clear.
First, several financial services companies have already admitted that they used “robo-signers,” false declarations, and other workarounds to cut corners, creating a legal nightmare that will waste time and money that could have been better spent to help this economy recover. Mortgage lenders will spend millions of dollars retracing their steps, often with the same result that families who cannot pay will lose their homes.
Second, this mess might well have been avoided if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had been in place just a few years ago.
The new consumer agency is one of the signature accomplishments of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama this summer.
The new agency will take on oversight responsibilities that had been scattered among several federal agencies, and it will be a new cop on the beat that will end big loopholes in the regulatory system.
For the first time, banks and non-bank lenders (such as payday lenders, check cashers and mortgage brokers) will be subject to the same federal oversight to ensure that they are all playing by the same rules-no more turning sideways and slipping through the regulatory cracks.
Lost in much of the back-and-forth over wrongful foreclosures is the question of whether the scandal could have been prevented. The answer is yes.
The practices now under investigation took root and grew because there was no single federal regulator with both the responsibility and the tools to look out for consumers.
Had it existed, the new consumer agency could have stopped these problems before they multiplied. Many of the failures already admitted were not sophisticated scams that had been carefully concealed. By enforcing existing laws and involving state authorities early on, the agency could have made sure that the law was respected. No one would need to wonder whether the world of borrowing and lending works only one way: Families have to follow the legal rules, but the rules are optional for big banks.
Once it is fully operational, the new consumer agency will have supervisory authority over all large mortgage servicers. It will be able to examine them on a regular basis to make sure they follow the rules. If those servicers decide it is cheaper or faster to circumvent federal law, the consumer agency will have the tools to hold them accountable.
No one will be allowed to break the rules without triggering a strong and prompt federal response.
Currently, the federal interagency foreclosure task force, including the members of the Financial Services Oversight Council, is working along with the state Attorneys General to get to the bottom of these problems. The implementation team for the new consumer agency is also working to assemble and coordinate teams to deal with servicing and other issues.
These efforts are critical, but there is more work to do: We must ensure this kind of scandal-or some close cousin-does not happen again.
A mortgage is the biggest financial commitment most Americans will make in a lifetime, and the toll on Florida has been especially heavy and the need for oversight particularly apparent. A few weeks ago, I watched proceedings in a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure court and saw firsthand the painful outcomes for numerous families.
Unfair servicing practices can worsen a family’s already difficult economic situation, and the injury echoes from the family to the community and ultimately throughout the economy. Cops on the beat can stop problems before the damage spreads. If there ever was any doubt that the new consumer agency is necessary, the latest foreclosure developments should put that to rest.
Such a deal!
Waiting for Superman
Davis Guggenheim was a guest on Charlie Rose discussing his new documentary that has changed the dialogue about the failures of American Education.
The US ranks:
25th in math
21st in science
The US ranks:
25th in math
21st in science
Just thinking.....Senator Brown to the rescue?
Doesn't it seem contradictory that Republicans who eschew Big Government, the "Nanny State," government bailouts, increased taxes, entitlements, should suddenly seek funding to address the dilemma's of their constituents?
In Let's ship jobs overseas......
there's a list of state senators and representatives who oppose increased taxes.
It seems a simple equation. If you oppose taxes, don't you also oppose the expectation of government services?
Brown surveys storm damage in Scituate
Politicians seek money for repairs; community reaches out to help victims
SCITUATE — Carmen Tirado has been stranded in the cafeteria of Scituate High School for five days. She and her family have been stuck at the town’s evacuee shelter since their house on Jericho Road flooded during Sunday’s nor’easter, and they are still waiting on any sort of aid to come through.
The Tirados’ situation was among those Senator Scott Brown witnessed during his tour of Scituate yesterday afternoon. The Massachusetts Republican toured the breach of the sea wall caused by the big storm and visited the evacuees remaining at the shelter.
“There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle,’’ Brown said. “We’ll need cooperation from the federal, private, and state agencies to solve the problems, and they are very large.’’
State and local officials say it could cost millions of dollars to repair damage left by the storm, which flooded dozens of residences, cut power to 1,000 residents, severely damaged the sea wall, and led to fires at two waterfront homes.
Even before the recent storm, Scituate was seeking other help. A storm damaged a stretch of the sea wall in 2007, and the town is still waiting for most of the estimated $800,000 in federal help for repairs from that incident.
The federal government, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, awarded $100,000 to Scituate in 2007 as part of a small sea wall project. But the rest of the money will not come to the town until it begins the repairs, and the work has not yet started.
“The way FEMA works is the project work has to start before reimbursement can begin. . . . It’s still moving forward,’’ said James Mannion, the state Emergency Management Agency representative for Scituate.
State Representative James M. Cantwell, Republican of Marshfield, who represents Scituate, is attempting to secure funds from the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, an agency that awarded $100,000 to Marshfield for sea wall damage from a storm in May.
In addition, he is hoping to establish a statewide fund in the future to assist with sea wall repairs for other communities.
“There are no current funds available, so what I’m trying to do is go at it from several different angles,’’ he said.
Cantwell is also pushing for more flexibility in Community Preservation Funds, which can only be used for low-income housing, creation of open space and recreation areas, and preservation of historic structures.
In the meantime, Brown and his field representatives collected information from Scituate evacuees to help them contact other government agencies for help.
For Brown, the story gave him hope for optimism.
“A lot of the folks down there have been saying that they are in fact very grateful for the response the community of Scituate has given them,’’ Brown said. “I mean, someone offered up their home, said, here, take it. . . . You don’t just see that anymore. It’s really refreshing to see and uplifting.’’
In Let's ship jobs overseas......
there's a list of state senators and representatives who oppose increased taxes.
It seems a simple equation. If you oppose taxes, don't you also oppose the expectation of government services?
Brown surveys storm damage in Scituate
Politicians seek money for repairs; community reaches out to help victims
SCITUATE — Carmen Tirado has been stranded in the cafeteria of Scituate High School for five days. She and her family have been stuck at the town’s evacuee shelter since their house on Jericho Road flooded during Sunday’s nor’easter, and they are still waiting on any sort of aid to come through.
The Tirados’ situation was among those Senator Scott Brown witnessed during his tour of Scituate yesterday afternoon. The Massachusetts Republican toured the breach of the sea wall caused by the big storm and visited the evacuees remaining at the shelter.
“There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle,’’ Brown said. “We’ll need cooperation from the federal, private, and state agencies to solve the problems, and they are very large.’’
State and local officials say it could cost millions of dollars to repair damage left by the storm, which flooded dozens of residences, cut power to 1,000 residents, severely damaged the sea wall, and led to fires at two waterfront homes.
Even before the recent storm, Scituate was seeking other help. A storm damaged a stretch of the sea wall in 2007, and the town is still waiting for most of the estimated $800,000 in federal help for repairs from that incident.
The federal government, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, awarded $100,000 to Scituate in 2007 as part of a small sea wall project. But the rest of the money will not come to the town until it begins the repairs, and the work has not yet started.
“The way FEMA works is the project work has to start before reimbursement can begin. . . . It’s still moving forward,’’ said James Mannion, the state Emergency Management Agency representative for Scituate.
State Representative James M. Cantwell, Republican of Marshfield, who represents Scituate, is attempting to secure funds from the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, an agency that awarded $100,000 to Marshfield for sea wall damage from a storm in May.
In addition, he is hoping to establish a statewide fund in the future to assist with sea wall repairs for other communities.
“There are no current funds available, so what I’m trying to do is go at it from several different angles,’’ he said.
Cantwell is also pushing for more flexibility in Community Preservation Funds, which can only be used for low-income housing, creation of open space and recreation areas, and preservation of historic structures.
In the meantime, Brown and his field representatives collected information from Scituate evacuees to help them contact other government agencies for help.
For Brown, the story gave him hope for optimism.
“A lot of the folks down there have been saying that they are in fact very grateful for the response the community of Scituate has given them,’’ Brown said. “I mean, someone offered up their home, said, here, take it. . . . You don’t just see that anymore. It’s really refreshing to see and uplifting.’’
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Beacon Hill: Bottle Bill Bottled Up?
Beacon Hill has allowed the Bottle Bill to be bottled up, is spite of overwhelming support. It's time for Beacon Hill to represent the best interests of the residents they represent and pass this important legislation.
We're all in this together and it's time for Beacon Hill to do what's right and work to save municipalities money.
MASSPIRG offered the comments below --
It’s common sense, and I’d estimate nine out of 10 citizens are completely in favor of the idea: Putting a $.05 deposit on all beverages not covered by the current Bottle Bill. It will help clean up litter, increase recycling, and save cities and towns money in disposal costs.
So why has the updated Bottle Bill stalled in the Massachusetts Legislature for more than a decade? The answer is three simple words: powerful special interests.
That’s why I have a request, also in three simple words: special holiday contribution.
Last week, I got a copy of a letter from the Massachusetts Beverage Association and other special interests. It was sent to state legislators and it called the updated Bottle Bill, among other things, a "tax." There's an undisputed difference between a deposit and a tax, if only the special interests were interested in facts.
But it will take more than a dictionary to defeat these powerful special interests. Help us get started.
Updating the bottle bill is just one example of how MASSPIRG is promoting common-sense, broadly supported solutions to public problems. We come up against the narrow, self interested lobbying forces that will stop at nothing to thwart our efforts. The chemical industry pushes back against safer alternatives. The banks balk at consumer protections and transparency. The list goes on.
Click here to help MASSPIRG defeat the special interests and win common sense laws for the rest of us.
Thanks.
Janet S. Domenitz
MASSPIRG Executive Director
P.S. The majority of our income is from citizen donors like you, and funds our campaigns to protect consumers from big banks, health insurers, agribusiness and other special interests. Please consider making a year-end contribution to MASSPIRG today.
We're all in this together and it's time for Beacon Hill to do what's right and work to save municipalities money.
MASSPIRG offered the comments below --
It’s common sense, and I’d estimate nine out of 10 citizens are completely in favor of the idea: Putting a $.05 deposit on all beverages not covered by the current Bottle Bill. It will help clean up litter, increase recycling, and save cities and towns money in disposal costs.
So why has the updated Bottle Bill stalled in the Massachusetts Legislature for more than a decade? The answer is three simple words: powerful special interests.
That’s why I have a request, also in three simple words: special holiday contribution.
Last week, I got a copy of a letter from the Massachusetts Beverage Association and other special interests. It was sent to state legislators and it called the updated Bottle Bill, among other things, a "tax." There's an undisputed difference between a deposit and a tax, if only the special interests were interested in facts.
But it will take more than a dictionary to defeat these powerful special interests. Help us get started.
Updating the bottle bill is just one example of how MASSPIRG is promoting common-sense, broadly supported solutions to public problems. We come up against the narrow, self interested lobbying forces that will stop at nothing to thwart our efforts. The chemical industry pushes back against safer alternatives. The banks balk at consumer protections and transparency. The list goes on.
Click here to help MASSPIRG defeat the special interests and win common sense laws for the rest of us.
Thanks.
Janet S. Domenitz
MASSPIRG Executive Director
P.S. The majority of our income is from citizen donors like you, and funds our campaigns to protect consumers from big banks, health insurers, agribusiness and other special interests. Please consider making a year-end contribution to MASSPIRG today.
We're all in this together
Whichever side of this issue you consider: Global Warming, Energy Security, Peak Oil, Peak Coal, Environmental Pollution, it certainly seems Cape Wind is a winner we should unite behind, except for a few with a vested interest, like Koch and Christy Mihos.
When the wealthy and politically connected oppose alternative energy projects that make sense for all of us, shouldn't we question their motives? Are they representing our best interests or protecting their ocean views? or what?
Baker backer linked to attack ad
Spot skewered Patrick, wind farm
A controversial radio ad attacking Governor Deval Patrick’s support for an offshore wind farm that aired during the final days of the governor’s race was funded in part with a donation from a prominent fund-raiser for Patrick’s Republican rival, Charles D. Baker.When the wealthy and politically connected oppose alternative energy projects that make sense for all of us, shouldn't we question their motives? Are they representing our best interests or protecting their ocean views? or what?
Baker backer linked to attack ad
Spot skewered Patrick, wind farm
The fund-raiser, Christopher F. Egan, was cochairman of Baker’s finance committee, according to Baker campaign materials, and personally contributed $1,500 to Baker and his running mate during the last two years, as well as $5,000 to the Republican State Committee.
The ad, which ran on five radio stations covering Greater Boston, the South Shore, and the Worcester area, was paid for by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a nonprofit that has led the opposition to the Cape Wind proposal for nearly a decade. Egan is a former board member of the Alliance.
The Globe has reported that the ad may have breached federal tax law that bars educational and charitable organizations, known as 501(c)(3)s, from engaging in activities supporting or opposing political candidates.
Internal Revenue Service guidelines say such organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.’’ Donations to 501(c)(3)s are tax deductible because they are considered contributions to the betterment of society.
Audra Parker, the president of the alliance, has said the ad was meant to educate voters about the candidates’ views on Cape Wind and fell within the bounds of legally permissible activities. Cape Wind is planning to build 130 turbines over 24 square miles in Nantucket Sound.
“We’ve been very careful to live within the letter of the law as a 501(c)(3),’’ Parker said in a recent interview.
Egan did not returns calls to his office yesterday.
The Alliance ad initially generated controversy when Common Cause of Massachusetts, which tracks the influence of money in politics, filed a complaint with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, suggesting that the Alliance was required to report the expenditure and had failed to do so.
Subsequently, the Alliance reported spending more than $32,500 on the ad with money donated by Joan Hill, a California resident; Christy Mihos, a cochairman of the alliance and a two-time gubernatorial candidate; and Egan.
Greenpeace, the global environmental group, then filed complaints with the IRS and Attorney General Martha Coakley, asking for investigations into whether the alliance violated its nonprofit status by sponsoring the ad. Greenpeace filed a third complaint asking state regulators to investigate whether the Alliance should have registered as a political committee and whether the three donors violated a prohibition against coordinating political expenditures with a candidate for elective office.
Rob Gray, a top strategist for the Baker campaign, said Egan never mentioned the ad to campaign operatives.
“The Baker campaign never consulted with any entity that has to be independent about advertising,’’ he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
