No One Advocates The Death Penalty For The Billionaires And Politicians Responsible For Poisoning Our Environment

 

-by Skip Kaltenheuser

You might already know Elliott Negin, whose writings I worked into Dance with the One that Brought You-- BERNIE!, on NPR’s red-baiting of Bernie, and Scott Pruitt’s Doublespeak Clarifies Him, on yet another disastrous industrial strength Trump appointee hellbent on ransacking the environment. If not, it's never too late. You can catch other writings by Elliott at the Union of Concerned Scientists, where Elliott is a senior writer, and at a number of other publications including the Huffington Post

Elliott’s guest post below underscores that corporate behemoth Exon-Mobile, the world’s fourth-largest oil company and largest that is investor-owned, takes top honors among the world’s phonies. While its public relations people now fret about climate change and claim support for the Paris climate agreement, it continues to pour money into outfits that undermine public awareness of man’s role in global warming and that derail efforts to regulate energy and the environment. While claiming to support a carbon tax, it greases climate denying legislators who oppose it. Does Exxon-Mobil have any connections to the Dark Money sloshing about Washington? Who knows, but I’d bet on it. Recall that Exxon’s scientists warned its executives about the critical impacts of man-made climate change over forty years ago and that their scientists have since been cutting edge in climate science, their knowledge just not shared with the public.

No one is short on cynicism these days, but it’s worth considering such corporate phonies now, as Amy Coney Barrett is catapulted onto the Supreme Court with an irrevocable corporate fix. Her father was a lawyer for Shell Oil for decades and a major player in the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying entity for 600 oil and gas corporations. Why focus on a parent? Because when Barrett was asked about climate change her reply, given while swaths of the American West were aflame, was that she had “no firm views” and couldn’t "offer any kind of informed opinion” on the causes of global warming. Most fourth-graders could best that know-nothing answer. So it sounds like Barrett will be another oil and gas tentacle, at a time the API and affiliates, including Shell, have a lot of skin in the game in cases coming before the Supreme Court.

Elliott describes other tentacles below.

Nero Lives by Nancy Ohanian

ExxonMobil Claims Shift on Climate But Continues to Fund Climate Science Deniers
-by Elliott Negin

After decades of public denial, ExxonMobil now acknowledges that “the risk of climate change is real” and says it is “committed to being part of the solution,” at least according to the company’s website and statements. To that end, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world claims it supports a federal carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement.

But the company’s recently released grantmaking report shows that it has not ended its two-decade-long campaign to stymie government efforts to address climate change. By ExxonMobil’s own accounting, it gave $690,000 to eight climate science denier groups in 2019, a 10 percent drop from 2018. In addition, it continued to fund federal lawmakers who oppose a carbon tax, despite its supposed longtime support for the idea. Forty percent of the nearly $1 million it has contributed so far to congressional incumbent campaigns during the 2019-20 election cycle has gone to 115 of the 150 climate science deniers still in office.

Sixty percent of ExxonMobil’s 2019 donations to climate obstructionist groups for “public information and policy research” went to the US Chamber of Commerce, while another 30 percent was split between the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which have been receiving annual grants from the company since it began financing climate disinformation 22 years ago. All told, ExxonMobil has spent more than $37 million on climate science denier organizations from 1998 through 2019, more than any individual funder besides Charles Koch and his brother, the late David Koch, the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries. Koch-controlled foundations spent more than $145 million on many of the same groups over roughly the same time period.

Did the top three recipients of ExxonMobil grants for climate science denier groups in 2019 toe the company’s publicly stated line on climate? The short answer is no. If actions speak louder than words, the donations call into question ExxonMobil’s commitment to seriously address the climate crisis and deserve a closer look.

The US Chamber still opposes carbon pollution standards

The US Chamber of Commerce has been a major player in blocking action on climate change going back to the 1990s, when the business lobby and Exxon were members of the Global Climate Coalition, a consortium of corporations and trade associations opposed to government policies that would cut carbon emissions.

But in 2009-- the same year ExxonMobil first announced its support for a carbon tax in a cynical attempt to derail cap-and-trade climate legislation-- the Chamber’s united front began to crack. A handful of Fortune 500 companies-- including Apple, Exelon Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric-- quit the Chamber over its opposition to the cap-and-trade bill while two other high-profile companies-- Nike and Johnson & Johnson-- retained their membership but rebuked the business lobby for the same reason. Since then, at least a dozen Chamber members, including Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, Mars, Nestlé and Unilever, have headed for the exits.

By contrast, ExxonMobil not only retained its Chamber membership, but it also pledged $5 million in annual installments to help pay for the Chamber’s $250-million renovation of its Washington, D.C., headquarters. In 2019, the company donated $400,000 for the building rehabilitation and another $15,000 to the Chamber’s Corporate Citizenship Center, bringing its total contributions since 2014 to $4.8 million.

What does ExxonMobil get for its money? Among other things, the business lobby goes to bat for it in court by filing lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and in the court of public opinion by funding misleading climate-related reports. A prime example is the Chamber’s widely debunked 2017 report that grossly exaggerated the cost to the US economy of complying with the Paris climate agreement. President Donald Trump cited that report as his primary rationale for ignoring the US commitment to the accord, and he has vowed to officially pull the United States out in early November.

However, in 2019, the Chamber seemed to take a 180-degree turn, declaring on its website: “Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option.” Although one could quibble with the assertion that human activity is merely contributing to climate change when in fact burning fossil fuels is the main cause, it was a far cry from when the organization maintained in comments submitted to the EPA in 2009 that “a warming of even 3 [degrees Celsius] in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans.”

But the Chamber’s turnabout was not complete. Although it now concedes the reality of human-caused climate change, it is still pushing private-sector innovation as the solution to the climate crisis rather than much-needed government regulation, which historically has driven technological advances.

So, while the Chamber supports government funding for research and development of advanced nuclear reactors, utility-scale batteries, and carbon capture and storage technology, it backed the Trump administration’s rollbacks of the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which would have reduced power plant carbon emissions and its 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule, which would have protected small streams, wetlands and groundwater from toxic chemicals.

More recently, the Chamber supported the Trump administration’s weakening of the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act by limiting public input in the infrastructure project approval process and rescinding a requirement that federal agencies consider a proposed project’s impact on the climate.

Unlike ExxonMobil’s professed support for a carbon tax, the Chamber has no official position, but if carbon tax legislation ever made it to the Senate or House floor, it presumably would oppose it given its dim view of government regulation.

Likewise, the Chamber’s avowed support for US compliance with the Paris climate accord includes a major caveat. Dan Byers, vice president for policy at the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, told Politico in August 2019 that it is “absolutely important for the US to remain in the Paris climate agreement” but added that the “Obama administration’s pledge was unrealistic, [and] was going to have a negative impact on our economy. And so we’d like to see that revisited.” In other words, the Chamber would like the United States to remain a party to the agreement so that it could lobby to weaken the US commitment to it.

American Enterprise Institute still downplays the climate threat

In 2019, ExxonMobil gave the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) $110,000, bringing its total since 1998 to $4.76 million-- more than any other of its climate science denier grantees. The 82-year-old, free market think tank also receives generous funding from other climate disinformation network supporters, including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation.

What does ExxonMobil get for its money from AEI? A cheerleader for fossil fuels, economist Benjamin Zycher, who-- contrary to the company’s professed climate positions-- argues that a carbon tax would be “ineffective” and has called the Paris agreement an “absurdity.”

In March, Zycher published a report arguing that “any plausible policy” to curb carbon emissions “would yield trivial effects while imposing large costs.” Instead, he recommended the federal government adopt a policy of “watchful waiting, adaptation over time, and ongoing investment in resilience against the future effects of climactic [sic] changes.”

How could Zycher recommend “watchful waiting” given the large costs climate change is already imposing right now? Granted, he published his report before this summer, when heat waves and wildfires burned up the West Coast and hurricanes slammed the Southeast. But last summer was not that different, and climate change-related disasters have been racking up considerable damage over the last few years. From 2017 through 2019, there were 44 unique extreme weather and climate-linked events across the country causing damages of $1 billion or more, collectively costing more than $460 billion.

Nevertheless, Zycher insists fossil fuels are indispensable. “Opposition to fossil fuels implies a reduction in policies-- education, training, health care, and the like-- that add to human capital and so increase incomes and the demand for conventional energy,” he wrote. “Therefore, opposition to fossil fuels is fundamentally antihuman.”

Zycher made the same argument in a May 7 column in the Financial Times, ranting that environmentalists who aim to deprive the world of fossil fuels “hate humanity, and the planet too.”

Putting aside Zycher’s ad hominem attack on the “environmental left,” he deliberately confuses the societal benefits of energy with how it is generated. At several junctures in history, humans switched from wood to coal to natural gas to warm their homes. Likewise, they switched from whale oil to kerosene to incandescents to LEDs to illuminate their homes.

Opposition to coal and kerosene in the past or fossil fuels today is not “fundamentally antihuman” when there are better, cleaner alternatives. And it turns out the alternatives-- solar and wind, specifically-- are now the cheapest sources of electricity, and they could have been more widely available years ago if ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies had not stood in the way.

The Manhattan Institute is still in love with fossil fuels

The Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based libertarian think tank, received $90,000 from ExxonMobil in 2019. Since 1998, the company has given the organization more than $1.4 million.

For the last decade, the institute’s go-to energy expert has been Robert Bryce, who, like AEI’s Zycher, is no fan of a carbon tax, ExxonMobil’s supposed pet climate solution. Before he left the think tank at the end of 2019, Bryce spent much of his time bashing renewable energy and extolling fossil fuels in reports and in the pages of the National Review, New York Post, Wall Street Journal and other publications.

Bryce routinely disparages renewables without providing context. In an August 2019 column on the conservative website RealClearEnergy, for example, he maintained that the wind industry is “facing increasing opposition” at least partly because of what he insists is the major threat it poses to eagles and other birds, an assertion he has been making ad nauseum for years. In fact, the top human-caused threats to birds are climate change, buildings, power lines, misapplied pesticides, communications towers, and oil and gas industry fluid waste pits-- not wind turbines.

As for wind energy’s specific threat to eagles, Dan Ashe, a former director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, debunked Bryce’s fallacious claim in a December 2016 HuffPost column. “Public attention on eagle loss in recent years has focused almost exclusively on wind energy,” Ashe wrote. “In truth, wind turbine collisions comprise a fraction of human-caused eagle losses. Most result from intentional and accidental poisoning and purposeful shooting. The majority of non-intentional loss occurs when eagles collide with cars or ingest lead shot or bullet fragments in remains and gut piles left by hunters. Others collide with or are electrocuted on power lines. Disproportionately and solely focusing on wind energy distorts public perceptions at a time when we desperately need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Cutting carbon pollution is hardly a goal that Bryce or any of his Manhattan Institute colleagues would ever publicly endorse. Doing so would certainly not please their other climate science denier benefactors, which include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Charles Koch Foundation, hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer’s Mercer Family Foundation, and Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, a Manhattan Institute trustee. All have donated considerably more money to the think tank than ExxonMobil in recent years and, unlike the oil company, do not pretend to care about the climate crisis.

Maintaining the status quo in Congress

The New York Times recently ran a story pointing out that European and US oil companies are heading in very different directions when it comes to climate change. While BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and other European-based companies are beginning to sell their oil fields and invest in renewable energy, their US counterparts Chevron and ExxonMobil are betting that oil and gas will continue to make up at least 50 percent of the energy market for at least the next 20 years.

Instead of transitioning to solar and wind, the two US oil giants are spending relatively trivial amounts on unproven technologies, such as modular fusion nuclear reactors (Chevron), algae-based biofuel (ExxonMobil), and carbon capture and storage schemes (both), which so far have been costly failures. If those pipe dreams were ever demonstrated to work at the necessary scale, it would still take decades to commercialize them.

The main reason European oil and gas companies are taking baby steps to embrace renewables? Government pressure. The European Union has set a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and seven EU countries plan to phase out vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel over the next few decades. Austria, with the most aggressive timetable, will ban internal-combustion-engine vehicle sales after 2020.

Although California recently announced it would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and most diesel-powered trucks by 2045, the Trump administration has taken the opposite tack, gutting landmark Obama-era rules curbing vehicle and power plant carbon emissions, rolling back methane emission and coal ash storage regulations, and lifting bans on oil and gas drilling on public land. Congress, meanwhile, has declined to consider climate bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the 2019-20 session.

The September 21 New York Times story cited unnamed energy analysts who excused Chevron and ExxonMobil for not changing their business models. “US lawmakers,” the analysts told the Times, “have simply not given them enough incentives to make a radical break.”

A major reason Congress has not given the US oil industry enough incentives to change course is because oil and gas companies have been giving a critical mass of US lawmakers enough incentives to do nothing. As mentioned above, $401,198 of the $991,329 ExxonMobil has spent so far on congressional incumbent campaigns during the current election cycle has gone to 115 of the 150 climate science deniers on Capitol Hill. Likewise, Chevron has spent $936,489 on incumbent campaigns so far. A little more than $433,000-- 46 percent-- has gone to 82 climate science deniers.

Besides making campaign contributions, oil companies spend a lot of money to keep tabs on their friends in Washington. So far, the top three oil and gas lobbyists during the 2019-20 cycle are Koch Industries, which has spent $30.72 million; Chevron, which has spent $28.54 million; and ExxonMobil, which has spent $28.36 million.

Why does ExxonMobil still support so many climate science deniers in Congress while contending to be so keen on a carbon tax? After all, just two years ago the company announced it would donate $1 million over two years to Americans for Carbon Dividends, a political action group created to promote a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Some lawmakers are bullish on a carbon tax, but ExxonMobil largely ignores them. Since January 2019, eight representatives, two Republicans and six Democrats-- and nine senators, all Democrats-- have introduced 10 carbon tax bills and one cap-and-trade bill. But only one of the eight representatives and four of the nine senators received a campaign contribution from ExxonMobil during this election cycle. The total amount the company donated to the five lawmakers was $15,000-- a measly 4 percent of what it gave climate science deniers.

To be sure, ExxonMobil’s spending on climate disinformation has shrunk dramatically in recent years. The company’s 2019 outlay was less than half of what it spent in 2017 and the lowest amount since 1999, when Exxon was going through its merger with Mobil. Likewise, its campaign contributions to climate science deniers in Congress dropped from $1.1 million during the 2017-18 election cycle to only $400,000, this cycle.

But the fact remains that, while the company is saying all the right things publicly about the need to address climate change, it is continuing to fund think tanks and lawmakers who dispute the science and oppose government action. That suggests that its professed support for a carbon tax is no more than a disingenuous public relations ploy to delay government action.

The tobacco industry used the very same tactic to hold off regulations for decades, and it worked well until it didn’t, when the industry lost in court and agreed to pay $246 billion in fines to states over 25 years.

Author’s note: Besides the US Chamber of Commerce ($415,000), American Enterprise Institute ($110,000) and Manhattan Institute ($90,000), ExxonMobil gave grants in 2019 to five other climate science denier groups: Center for American and International Law ($5,000), Federalist Society ($10,000), Hoover Institution ($15,000), Mountain States Legal Foundation ($5,000) and the Washington Legal Foundation ($40,000). For an overview of ExxonMobil’s grants from 1998 through 2019, click here.

Oil Can Harry by Nancy Ohanian

This article, which was originally published by Truthout, was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute

Chamber of Commerce Quietly Supports a United Government Led by Democrats

Saagar Enjeti explains the importance of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's quiet decision to back Democratic candidates 

by Thomas Neuburger

One of the more underappreciated pieces of news in a week that exploded with news — leak of Trump's taxes, the presidential debate, the presidential disease — was this, that a long-time strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has resigned over the Chamber's decision to back 23 vulnerable House Democrats and to reduce financial support for Republican senatorial candidates.
From Politico:

Chamber of Commerce and top political strategist part ways amid turmoil

Scott Reed, who had been with the business organization for most of the past decade, said it was shifting toward Democrats. 

Scott Reed, the longtime top political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Tuesday that he left the organization after a political shift at the business lobbying powerhouse.

The move comes amid mounting fears among Republicans — including many within the organization — that the traditionally conservative Chamber is moving to the left after endorsing roughly two dozen freshman House Democrats for reelection this year.

Reed explained his departure (the Chamber said he was "fired for cause") this way: "I can no longer be part of this institution as it moves left."

Putting aside the dispute over whether Reed left or was fired, there are two explanations for what the Chamber is doing, and they're not the same. Reed says he departed because the Chamber "moved left." The Politico slugline writer says more simply that the Chamber was "shifting toward Democrats." 

Needless to say, "moving left" is not the same as "supporting Democrats."
Ryan Grim, writing at The Intercept, calls the Chamber's transformation a "slow migration of the elite wing of the Republican Party into the Democratic fold." This seems a much better explanation. 

Hedging Their Bets or Trying to Influence the Outcome? 

As Rising's Saagar Enjeti noted in the video above, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spends $100 million per year, is the largest lobbyist by far in the United States, doling out 30% more money than its nearest competitor. 

In the past, all or almost all of that money went to Republicans — 93%, for example, in 2010. This year the Chamber is not only supporting many more Democrats; it's supporting Democrats in a way that will make a difference in the partisan makeup of Congress. While the Chamber also supports House Republicans, the 29 House freshmen it is backing "are running in some of the most competitive races in the country, including 14 in districts won by President Donald Trump in 2016" according to CNN.

On the Senate side, the Chamber has greatly reduced its spending on vulnerable Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Politico notes that Reed's decision to resign "was linked to the Chamber’s unwillingness to spend significant money on Senate races in the closing days of the election" and adds that Ms. Collins is receiving "far less money in 2020 than ... in 2014, when [the Chamber] put tens of millions of dollars behind GOP Senate candidates."

Politico has Reed saying the Chamber is "hedging its bets." Voices on the libertarian right are much more virulent, calling this a "betrayal" and abandonment of "free market principles."  At the same time Republican leaders see the Chamber as, in House minority leader Kevin McCarthy's words, "part of this socialist agenda that is driving this country out, and ... fighting the president."

Those are angry, empty words. Biden to Trump at the first debate: "I am not a socialist." Progressives to world: "It's true. He's not. He's a moderate Republican."

Three Conclusions

From all this I think we can draw three conclusions, each leading to a different electoral thought.

First, that Ryan Grim is right when he says the elite wing of the Republican Party is being folded into the Democratic Party — not just in theory, but in practice, in dollars, as well. It's clear that the Chamber and those who give it their money have made the calculation, at least for this presidential cycle, that their interests will be genuinely served by a Biden White House and a unified Democratic Congress. 

In other words, they want a united government controlled by the Democratic Party. They know Trump is going to lose (Trump was scheduled to lose even before the recent Covid incident), and they're working to both maintain a Democratic House majority and to sabotage the current Republican Senate majority.

There's really no other way to read this news. 

Second, as stated above, the Chamber of Commerce and the big-league donors who support it know that a Biden White House and Democratic Congress will further their interest far more than a Trump-led divided or Republican government.

If the Chamber is right, progressives looking to "move Biden left" after the election, have their work cut out for them. The only "moving left" the administration will do is on identity issues. On issues involving money, it will "move left" only at the margins and for show. 

For example, will Biden ban fracking? Of course not; there are too many big-donor dollars (and banking dollars) involved in that industry. For all his recent words, Biden seeks a "middle ground" on climate issues. It's easy to promise carbon-free power by 2035," fifteen years into a future in which he'll be dead.

Finally, Biden will almost certainly be the next president. 

I mentioned a "Trump-led government" above for a reason. Earlier I wrote ("Civil War? What Civil War?") that almost everyone in the establishment regardless of party, from the military to the national security apparatus to the media to, now, the Chamber of Commerce, opposes a return of Donald Trump to the White House. While the Chamber's not working directly against him — that would be a bridge too far — they're not help out; in fact, they're working to give him a Congress he can't work with. 

The truth is this: Donald Trump is such a terrible, unpredictable and embarrassing steward of the American hegemony project that no one with Establishment power wants to see him back. #NeverTrumpers are just a tip of the Republican side of that iceberg. This "betrayal" by the Chamber of Commerce, one of the Republican Party's most stalwart and reliable supporters, strongly supports that contention. 

If this is true, it means I will be proved right in predicting the outcome of the coming election as follows:

• If Trump wins big, Trump's in.
• If Biden wins big, Biden's in.

But:

• If Trump is ahead in a squeaker and it goes to the courts, the Roberts Court will give the win to Biden unless there's no defensible way not to give it to Trump.
• If Biden is ahead in a squeaker and it goes to the courts, Biden will be handed the White House.

You can bet that if the election is closer than the number of disputed ballots in key electoral-college states, there will be a way to hand the election to whichever candidate the Roberts Court prefers. Will John Roberts, a Republican, give the election to MAGA Republicans or to Chamber Republicans, if he could pick one or the other? John Roberts is a Chamber Republican.

If you're worried about the 2000 election and you fear a Republican Court will back a Republican candidate, consider that George Bush was also the Establishment candidate. This time, the Establishment candidate is the Democrat.

Even if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed this year, will she really want to oppose John Roberts in her first Supreme Court opinion ever, Roberts who will lead the institution she'll serve for the next 30 years of her life? If course not; there will be plenty of time for Amy Coney Barrett to screw the country later. Roberts will win the discussion, if he wants to, this time around.

Again, Trump is not the candidate of the oligarchy, of the small clutch of people who actually run the country. Biden is. In any close outcome, he has the edge. Biden will be the next president unless Trump wins by a significant margin — or dies and the rest of the country, including the Chamber of Commerce, falls suddenly in love with Mike Pence.
   

Biden Isn't The Only Conservative Democrat Being Embraced By Republicans-- The Chamber Of Commerce Just Pulled The Trigger For Lots Of Blue Dogs And New Dems

Last week, we noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was preparing-- with some partisan pushback from the GOP Establishment-- to endorse a gaggle of freshmen Democrats who have records of being sufficiently anti-working class congressional Democrats and who, generally, are part of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And now they have now so: 23 Democratic freshmen and 29 Republican freshmen-- all representing the interests of Wall Street and anti-family, corporate governance. Trump-Republican Eric Esshaki-- a sore loser, pissed off that he didn't get the Chamber's endorsement for Michigan's 11th congressional district-- summed it up well when his New Dem opponent Haley Stevens was endorsed. Esshaki dismissed the Chamber as "the swamp lobbyists swimming with Haley Stevens" and said that "Congresswoman Stevens being endorsed by another set of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., is not news. These lobbyists care about backroom deals with Nancy Pelosi. Every lobbyist knows Stevens blindly follows the Nancy Pelosi agenda. Haley Stevens is bad for jobs, bad for working families and bad for health care."

Trump won MI-11 in 2016-- 49.7% to 45.3%-- but in 2018, Stevens beat millionaire self-funder Republican Lena Epstein, who had been endorsed by the Chamber, 181,912 (51.8%) to 158,463 (45.2%), winning in both the Wayne and Oakland counties parts of the suburban Detroit district. Epstein had put $1,168,790 of her own money into the race and spent $2,636,898 in all. Stevens was able to out-raise her significantly and spent $4,149,627. The DCCC and it's allies spent around $5.8 million bolstering Stevens and GOP groups only ponied up about $1.3 for Epstein. So far this cycle Stevens has raised $3,858,939 to Esshaki's $418,369, $100,000 of which was self-funded and most of which he has already spent in an ugly primary battle. It doesn't look like any significant outside money will be spent in MI-11 this cycle and that Stevens will breeze to reelection.

These are the 23 Democratic freshmen who have been endorsed by the Chamber-- each with their progressive punch first year grade next to their name:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- F
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- F
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- F
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- F
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- F
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- F
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- F
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- F
• Andy Kim (NJ)- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- F
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- F
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- F
• Antonio Delgado (New Dem-NY)- F
• Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ)- D
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- F
• TJ Cox (New Dem-CA)- F
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- F
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- F
• David Trone (New Dem-MD)- F
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- F
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- F
• ean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- F
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- F

The 5 Democrats with the very worse voting records in Congress-- all Blue Dogs-- are also all Chamber of Commerce endorsees. Here's the list, from horrible to worst and the percentage next to each name indicates how often they have voted for anything even vaguely progressive:

• Kendra Horn (OK)- 29.11%
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)- 29.11%
• Ben McAdams (UT)- 27.85%
• Anthony Brindisi (NY)- 25.32%
• Joe Cunningham (SC)- 24.05%

For comparison's sake, there are only 8 freshmen with "A" grades, Andy Levin (100%), Joe Neguse (97.47%), Ayanna Pressley (96.20%), Chuy Garcia (94.94%), AOC (94.94%), Rashida Tlaib (94.94%). Lori Trahan (93.67%) and Ilhan Omar (92.41%). Needless to say, the Chamber certainly didn't consider endorsing any of them. In fact, this cycle the Chamber has spent 6-figure amounts against AOC, as well as $200,000 to bolster Blue Dog Henry Cuellar against progressive primary opponent Jessica Cisneros.

The Chamber had endorsed and spent money for Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party before, but it's odd this time seeing them working to elect Democrats who they worked hard against in 2018. For example, now they're all for conservative Democrat Sharice Davids but they spent $200,000 against her just two years ago. This year they love conservative Democrat Joe Cunningham; last cycle they endorsed Republican fringe nut Katie Arrington against him. In California's Central Valley, there is a re-match between incumbent TJ Cox and former incumbent David Valadao. In 2018, the Chamber was all for Valadao. This cycle they're backing Cox. On receiving their endorsement, Cox boasted about how frequently he votes with the Republicans against the working class. "Small businesses are the backbone of our Central Valley communities and the work our local Chambers of Commerce have done to help keep Main Street weather the storm of this year is nothing short of a lifesaver,” Cox said of his new best friends. "As a businessman myself, I’m proud to work with anyone and every one to deliver for the Central Valley, which is why I have backed pro-small business legislation that supports shared prosperity through good-paying jobs, even bucking my own party to get results."

A scumbag like Cox knows he can count of Democrats to vote blindly for the "D" next to his name, regardless of his shitty voting record and irrespective of his Republican-orientation when it comes to policy. The Fresno Bee also reversed positions. Having backed Cox in 2018, they have now endorsed Valadao, primarily, they wrote, because of his unscrupulous business dealings: "Not paying workers their wages. Not paying taxes. And, with the razor-thin victory two years ago, not a mandate for Cox to represent the 21st."

The Fox channel in Oklahoma City seemed delighted for their favorite conservative congresswoman. "Earlier this year, Congresswoman Kendra Horn received the Chamber’s highest bipartisanship score among the Oklahoma congressional delegation. Congresswoman Horn ranks higher with the U.S. Chamber for her legislative record than Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, Senator Lankford, Congressman Hern, and Congressman Mullin."

Horn, who beat an unfunded progressive Democrat in the primary said she is "honored to have the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber because it means I’ve delivered on my promise to bring both parties together in support of Oklahoma’s businesses and economic opportunity in our state. I fought to save small businesses during the pandemic and hosted a job fair to connect Oklahomans with dozens of local employers. In Congress, I work with business and industry leaders from aerospace to health care to oil and gas to support our diverse economy. My support for pro-growth policies, like USMCA, set our businesses, workers, and families up for success. We don’t have to choose between policies that are good for our people and policies that are good for our pocketbooks."

If you'd like to support candidates for Congress who have not ever been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-- or any other Republican front groups-- I've included a thermometer on the right that goes to the Blue America Act Blue page with Democratic congressional candidates whose agendas are in the best interests of working families in their districts, like, for example, Cathy Kunkel in West Virginia. "In our campaign," she told me yesterday, "we are unapologetically for working class West Virginians: Medicare for All universal healthcare, negotiating to bring down prescription drug prices, $15/hour minimum wage and more. We support cutting the military budget and forcing wealthy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes so that we can invest in healthcare, education and infrastructure to combat poverty here at home. Our campaign is not taking any corporate PAC dollars exactly because I'm not going to be the kind of politician who goes to DC and immediately sells out their constituents to wealthy campaign donors."

Most 2018 DCCC Recruits Are Being Endorsed By The Chamber Of Commerce-- Meet Next Year's Chamber Endorsees

2018 DCCC recruit Jeff Van Drew is honest enough to be running for reelection as a Republican. Other 2018 DCCC recruits are being endorsed by the US Chamber of Commerce. Maybe someone needs to change the DCCC-- drastically

ProgressivePunch has awarded grades of "F" to 108 Democrats in Congress. 35 of them are part of the the most right-wing freshmen class in the history of the modern Democratic Party. Some of them-- like Steny Hoyer and Cheri Bustos-- are among top party leadership. All of them are extremely conservative and would have been considered Republicans before the GOP took a turn towards fascism in Reagan-era politics. Many of them, in fact, were Republicans.

I had to laugh yesterday because one of the "ex"-Republicans, a super-rich, utterly worthless bucket of slime from California, Gil Cisneros-- who was a potato chip taster who won a lottery and bought off the Democratic Party for a House seat-- was extolled as a hero of the revolution by none other than... Elizabeth Warren. Maybe she's getting bad advise, but Cisernos doesn't support anything Warren stands for. (By the way, Progressive Punch rated her record "A.") She wrote yesterday that she often talks "about the big, structural change that I believe is necessary to ensure the sanctity of our democracy, to hold our government accountable to working for the people and not corporations, and to bring bold action on the issues that matter most - like access to affordable health care, protected social safety programs, and attention to local economies." Yep she does work hard for those things. Cisneros works against them.

She wrote that "systemic change relies in part on the action of good public servants-- those who hold themselves accountable to hard working families, those who are committed to fighting for justice. It depends on people like Gil Cisneros." Did someone slip some ayahuasca into her tea? Cisernos didn't earn an "F" because he's a good public servant-- he's not-- or because he holds himself accountable to hard working families-- be doesn't-- and especially not because he's committed to fighting for justice; he isn't.

"That is why," she continued, absurdly and damaging her own brand, "for his righteous fights, for all that he brings to our Congress, for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents and Americans everywhere-- I am proud to endorse my friend Gil Cisneros in his reelection bid for Congress."

Friendships can account for a lot, I guess. Cisneros spent $9,252,762 to buy his seat in 2018. And that doesn't count these contributions:

• $47,300 to the DNC (July 7, 2016)
• $33,400 to the DNC (Sept. 9, 2015)
• $33,400 to the DNC (March 31, 2016)
• $32,4000 to the DNC (Feb. 11, 2014)

Warren wasn't done. "I’m proud to endorse Gil because, to me, he’s the exemplar of the type of fighters we need in Congress: those who offer more than just empty talk and actually lead with their actions. Who keep the promises they’ve made to people who elect them, who don’t sell out to special interests-- and who won’t back down from protecting working families’ right to quality, affordable health care and social safety nets that the President is trying desperately to rip away. Gil listens to his constituents, he stands with hard working Americans, he’s committed to doing right by those in California’s 39th-- and I’m committed to ensuring that Gil is reelected to Congress in November... [A]t this crucial point in the campaign cycle, Gil’s campaign is laser-focused on doing all that they can to spread his message of progress. But the only way that they’ll be able to talk to more voters, hire more staff, and shore up their media operation is with donations today from folks like us."

No shame. Like when she savaged her friend Bernie.

That was a tangent I didn't mean to get into. What I wanted to talk about was the blurring on the lines between Democrats and Republicans in Congress, not a new topic around DWT. Using their lifetime crucial vote scores as the determinant, these are the worst Democrats in the House-- the ones who have voted less than 50% of the time for progressive positions-- along with their district's PVIs:

• Conor Lamb (PA)- 48.06% [R+1]
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 47.98% [even PVI]
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- 44.30% [R+4]
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 44.30% [R+6]
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 44.27% [D+9]
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- 42.31% [R+3]
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- 41.77% [D+1]
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- 40.51% [R+1]
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 39.95% [D+9]
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 39.10% [R+12]
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 39.01% [R+3]
• Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME)- 35.44% [R+2]
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 29.11% [R+10]
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 29.11% [R+6]
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 27.85% [R+13]
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 25.32% [R+6]
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 24.05% [R+10]

Many of these right-of-center faux-Democrats-- what people call the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- are about to get rewarded for their consistent anti-progressive stands and for preventing the congressional Democratic Party from even taking up issues opposed by corporate America. The Chamber of Commerce, despite furor in the GOP-- is going to back them for reelection. According to Politico reporter Alex Isenstadt, two dozen freshmen Blue Dogs and New Dems are about to get the reelection nod from the U.S. Chamber, although Isenstadt's point is that this is "triggering a revolt within the right-leaning organization and drawing fierce pushback from the group’s powerful GOP donors. The decision represents a sharp departure for the traditionally conservative Chamber, which has spent over $100 million backing Republican candidates during the past decade, and it threatens to further complicate the party’s prospects in the November election while driving a split in the business community." Yeah, yeah... but it's hardly unknown for the U.S. Chamber to back right-wing, anti-progressive Democrats. Like the NRA, they reward the worst scum inside the Democratic Party, despite wing nut special interests flipping out and huffing and puffing. Some of the fake Dems up for Chamber endorsements include Kendra Horn, Elaine Luria, Andy Kim and Joe Cunningham.

Chamber leaders-- including President Suzanne Clark, Chief Executive Officer Tom Donahue and Executive Vice President Neil Bradley-- have been pushing the proposal ahead of a Thursday committee vote to finalize a slate of 2020 endorsements.

But the group’s donors and members are up in arms, with some threatening to pull funding and others openly venting their frustration. Some are raising the prospect that Chamber board members will quit in the weeks to come.

There is particular concern the Democrats in question do not have the pro-business record an endorsement would convey. State Chamber of Oklahoma President Chad Warmington wrote a letter Tuesday to national Chamber leaders fervently opposing the proposal to back Rep. Kendra Horn, perhaps the most vulnerable House Democrat in the country.

Citing the Oklahoma congresswoman’s voting record on energy issues, Warmington wrote, “I question how the U.S. Chamber could endorse a candidate who consistently voted against the largest industry in Oklahoma, employing over 90,000 workers throughout the state. That is hardly a pro-business record. I am also concerned the U.S. Chamber would endorse a congresswoman that voted in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who are not pro-business nearly 90 percent of the time.”

Warmington added: “I don’t believe an endorsement of Congresswoman Horn is warranted at this time and certainly not justifiable based on the current record of consequential votes impacting Oklahoma businesses.”

...The clash also provides a window into a growing rift in the business community over its place in the Donald Trump-dominated Republican Party, which has at times embraced policies the corporate world opposes. While the Chamber has almost exclusively endorsed Republicans over the past decade, it has collided with the president over everything from tariffs to immigration.

Clark told the Washington Post last year that “if anybody here ever thought of themselves as working for a partisan place, they should stop.”

Thomas Wilson, chairman of the Chamber’s executive committee, said in a statement that "the Chamber’s board has actively and successfully supported more bipartisanship in Washington since 2016 so we can create jobs and economic prosperity,” adding that “our priorities cut across party lines.”

“We are excited about the positive impact our enhanced endorsement criteria is having on creating better solutions for America," Wilson added.

The Chamber’s shift toward Democrats has deeply worried Republican officials, who long regarded the Chamber as a key piece of their campaign infrastructure. And it comes as two other prominent Republican-aligned political organizations, the National Rifle Association and Koch political network, pare back their electoral activity.

The Chamber has typically endorsed a handful of House Democrats each election year, though people familiar with the group say it hasn't endorsed so many at a single time. It rarely gets behind freshmen members, who are especially vulnerable in their first reelection race.

The DCCC has also tended to add the most conservative Democratic candidates to its endorsement list (the much-distrusted red to blue program, once notoriously run by Debbie Wasserman Schultz to benefit her own Republican cronies!) This morning, a progressive Democrat meeting all the supposed criteria for a DCCC endorsement asked me if I could help her figured out why she still wasn't on this list. I laughed and suggested she could join the New Dems or Blue Dogs and Cheri Bustos would have her on the list in 48 hours. Of the 33 mostly right-of-center candidates on the Red-to-Blue list, 25 have also been endorsed by the Blue Dogs and/or New Dems who Bustos has allowed to act as Red-to-Blue gatekeepers this cycle.

The Blue Dogs have found the 8 most Republican-like Democratic candidates to get behind for 2020, none of whom should be considered Democrats when it is time to go to the polls-- unless you want to make sure no progressive legislation ever even reaches the floor:

• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Gretchen Driskell (MI-07)
• Margaret Good (FL-15)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02)
• Christine Hale (IN-05)
• Josh Hicks (KY-06)
• Brynne Kennedy (CA-04)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)

The New Dems have endorsed 30 anti-working class candidates so far. Their list is is where the Red-to-Blue list comes from. This is the new crop of neo-liberals. Red-to-Blue endorsees are in red:

• Alyse Galvin (AK-AL)
• Hiral Tipirneni (AZ-06)
• Christy Smith (CA-25)
• Margaret Good (FL-16)
• Carolyn Bourdeaux (GA-07)
• Betsy Dirksen Londrigan (IL-13)
• Christina Hale (IN-05)
• Hillary Scholten (MI-03)
• Dan Freehan (MN-01)
• Deborah Ross (NC-02)
• Kathy Manning (NC-06)
• Pat Timmons Goodson (NC-08)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02
• Kate Schroder (OH-01)
• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Wendy Davis (TX-21)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)
• Gina Ortiz Jones (TX-23)
• Carolyn Long (WA-03)
• Sara Jacobs (CA-53) who is running against a progressive Democrat in November, Georgette Gomez (who you can contribute to here)
• Jill Schupp (MO-02)
• Kathleen Williams (MT-AL)
• Amy Kennedy (NJ-02)
• Nancy Goroff (NY-01)
• Desiree Tims (OH-10)
• Hillary O'Connor Mueri (OH-14)
• Christina Finello (PA-01)
• Sima Ladjevardian (TX-02)
• Cameron Webb (VA-05)
• Marilyn Strickland (WA-10) who is running against a progressive Democrat in November, Beth Doglio (who you can contribute to here)

Primaries Today

Today, voters are at the polls in Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Connecticut. (In 2 weeks, on August 28, Florida and Arizona.) The most important state to watch-- and to vote in-- today is Wisconsin. Most of the contested primaries are on the Republican side. The Republicans hope to take on U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin and of the 5 combatants, it's come down to a race between Ken doll and former Democrat Kevin Nicholson and state Senator Leah Vukmir. Nicholson, backed by Big Money, is the likely nominee.

The big congressional race will be in southeast Wisconsin (WI-01) where both parties are looking for a replacement for Paul Ryan, who-- fearful of losing to Randy "@IronStache" Bryce-- folded up his tent and headed for the hills. The Republicans have 5 candidates contesting the nomination, from wealthy neo-Nazi Paul Nehlen to Ryan-clone (and establishment pick) Bryan Steil. The Republicans have also been spending money on a weak-- albeit extremely vicious and negative-- Democratic vanity candidate, to annoy Bryce and make it appear that his race is seriously contested. Bryce's win tonight will be one of the most significant congressional results in the country and will likely result in an important red-to-blue flip in November. More important, though, than just a red-to-blue flip, is a flip from corporate conservatism to actual working class solidarity. There is bipartisan agreement inside both DC political establishments that Bryce could be a real interrupter to repulsive congressional business-as-usual.

There are also 8 candidates running for the Democratic nomination to take on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker-- state superintendent of schools Tony Evans, Matt Flynn, Mike McCabe, Mahlon Mitchell, Josh Pade, former state Rep Kelda Roys, Madison mayor Paul Soglin and state Senator Kathleen Vinehout. Both public polls in July show Evers winning the primary and then going on to beat Walker in November, the Marist poll 54 to 41% (which also shows Trump with a 52% disapproval rating and 36% approval). And here's the top-line result from the Emerson poll:

State Senator Chris Larson sent his supporters a get-out-the-vote e-mail urging them to cast ballots for Mandela Barnes for Lieutenant Governor, Sarah Godlewski for Treasurer, Arvina Martina for Secretary of State, Errnell Lucas for Milwaukee County Sheriff, noting that "This is race is a very important one. Since being appointed by a Republican Governor in 2002, Sheriff David Clarke has been steadily making our community less safe. From radio ads encouraging citizens to arm themselves to deaths in his custody, Clarke has been a horrible embarrassment for our county. With Scott Walker’s blessing, Clarke’s chief enabler is now the acting Sheriff and is running to serve a full 4-year term. Earnell Lucas is the man to stop him and, more importantly, lead the Sheriff’s office out of the controversies and mayhem it’s been in. Earnell has 40 years experience in protecting the public and understands the need for justice reform on a broader scale. He also will be a key partner in stemming drunk driving in our corner of the state."

Larson introduced me to Randy Bryce last year and suggested that I urge him to run for Congress, so it was no surprise when he endorsed Bryce again this week: "Randy has been a friend since we first met standing up to the abuses of power by Scott Walker 8 years ago. Randy has been a powerful voice, speaking at just about every major action in Wisconsin since. His spirited campaign has already gotten Paul Ryan to flinch and jump ship. Having him fight for the forgotten working class of Wisconsin in congress is just too good of an opportunity to pass up."

He also endorsed Gwen Moore in the WI-04 district. As for local state legislative races, Larson is asking voters to back 4 for the state Assembly and 2 for the state Senate:

• Marisabel Cabrera- 9th AD
• Fred Kessler in the 12th AD
• Supreme Moore Omokunde in the 16th AD
• Evan Goyke in the 18th AD
• Lee Snodgrass in the 19th SD
• Jeff Smith in the 31st SD.

Remember to bring your ID. Polls are open 7am-8pm

In the northwestern Connecticut congressional district (CT-05), wealthy New Dem Elizabeth Esty got involved in an office scandal and was forced to retire. The best candidate-- the progressive one-- running to replace her is Jahana Hayes, who was the 2016 National Teacher of the Year. It's the least Democratic of the state's 5 congressional seats (PVI is D+2 and Hillary only beat Trump 49.9-45.8%) and includes Waterbury, Danbury, Meriden, New Miller and Salisbury. Hayes' opponent, conservative Mary Glassman, was endorsed yesterday by the very, very Republican U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The last time the Chamber weighed in on a Democratic primary was when they endorsed right-wing GOP-lite Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. (The other "Democrat" the Chamber is backing this year is right-wing Blue Dog Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.)

There's also an important gubernatorial race in Connecticut, where immensely unpopular Governor Dan Malloy did everyone a favor by not running again. It could be relatively hard for the Democrats to hold on but Ned Lamont looks like the front-runner. His main opponent is Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, who went to prison for corruption during an earlier stint in elected office.

And that brings us to Minnesota, where there are also some important races. Let's start with Alan Franken's U.S. Senate that a Gabby Giffords-led coup gave to Tina Smith. She's been a good enough voter but hasn't distinguished herself at all and is now asking the voters to elect her. She has 5 challengers but the only one who has gotten any attention is Bush's former ethics lawyer Richard Painter, who's on MSNBC bitching about Trump's corruption all the time and has switched parties. He hasn't raised enough money to fund a competitive campaign (just $233,848 against Smith's $4,844,776).

Minnesota has 8 congressional districts and I'm sorry to say that corrupt arch-conservative, Blue Dog Collin Peterson has no primary opponent (again) in MN-07. Nor does New Dem Angie Craig, a status quo establishment Democrat who many people believe is progressive-- she isn't-- because she's a lesbian. The 2 things-- a progressive vision and sexuality-- are not related. I wouldn't vote for her in a primary, although it is necessary to back her in November against woman-hating/homophobe insane incumbent, Jason Lewis. Another conservative is favored to win in the open 1st district, Dan Feehan. I wouldn't vote for him either. Same in the 3rd, where conservative Dean Phillips is the establishment pick to take on Erik Paulsen in November. Vote for Phillips and Feehan in November, but not today. Minnesota's brightest hope for helping to reform and improve Congress is Ilhan Omar in the crowded race to replace Keith Ellison in Minneapolis (MN-05).

There's also a 5-way gubernatorial primary among Democrats for the open seat. The winner is likely to face Tim Pawlenty (unless the Trumpists are strong enough to give the nomination to lunatic Jeff Johnson). Among the Democrats it looks like a close race been conservative congressman Tim Walz and state Attorney General Lori Swanson. Polls show either one beating Pawlenty, albeit narrowly.

The next really crucial races are in Florida, where Blue America is backing Alan Grayson in Orlando, Matt Haggman in Miami and Andrew Gillum for governor. Please keep in mind that the GOP is experimenting with pouring money into Democratic primaries to knock out progressives so that conservatives win. They're doing this in Orlando where a SuperPAC controlled by No Labels is targetting Alan Grayson (in favor of conservative Democrat Darren Soto) and is funded by GOP billionaires like James Murdoch, who chipped in $500,000 to smear Grayson.