Mediaboss Marketing

The nations leading electric utility and their affiliated companies, along with top utility executives, contributed more than four times as much money to the Republican Governors Association in the first six months of 2017 than to the Democratic Governors Association, according to a new report.

Governors can have a significant impact on the activities of utility companies in their states, whether it is appointing members to state regulators commissions or developing energy policy. Most recently, Republican governors in Maine and Indiana played important roles in impeding the growth of clean energy in their states, UtilitySecrets.org, a joint project of the Energy and Policy Institute and the Center for Media and Democracy, stated in the report.

In Indiana,Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed abillthat shreds incentives for rooftop solar, delivering a blow to solar installers and their customers. In Maine,lawmakersfailed to overrideGov. Paul LePages(R) veto of a solar bill aimed at boosting rooftop solar growth. The actions by the Republican governors were supported by the electric utilities in the state.

There are two gubernatorial elections in 2017 and 36 in 2018. Twenty-six of these seats are currently held by Republicans. With West Virginia Gov. Jim Justices recent switch to the Republican Party, the GOP now holds 34 governorships, an all-time high for the party.

The results in the large number of gubernatorial elections in 2018 will likely play a role in how the United States goes aboutcutting carbon dioxide emissions, according to a report released last week by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news site housed in the Center for American Progress.)

For the United States as a whole, however, meaningful action on climate change will require expanding the map of states actively involved in curbing carbon pollution and preparing for its effectsas well as ratcheting up current actions and commitments, the report stated. A change in leadership in New Jersey, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan to one with a strong focus on reducing carbon pollution would send a clear message to the White House and the rest of the world that American voters support climate action.

In its report, UtilitySecrets.org found that electric utilities, their affiliated companies, and their executives contributed $1,154,355 to the Republican Governors Association in the first six months of 2017, compared to $286,427 donated to the Democratic Governors Association.

The group has similar lawsuit pending against Scott Pruitt in Oklahoma.

Fifteen companies surveyed by UtilitySecrets.org contributed money only to the Republican Governors Association. Five companies or associations Dominion Energy, PSEG Services, Southern Co., Xcel Energy, and the Edison Electric Institute, the electric utility industrys leading trade association contributed money to both the Republican and Democratic governors associations.Only PSEG Services donated more to the Democratic Governors Association than to the Republican Governors Association, and only Xcel Energy donated equal amounts to the two groups.

Only one utility, Puget Sound Energy, contributed solely to the Democratic Governors Association. The company serves1.1 million electric customers and 800,000 natural gas customers in Washington state, a state that has had only Democratic governors over the past three decades.

Its pretty clear the utilities have an agenda and Republicans have been more welcoming to help with that agenda compared to Democrats, which can explain the difference, Matt Kasper, research director at the Energy & Policy Institute and author of the report, said in a statement emailed to ThinkProgress. And now with Trump in office, corporations that give to these national organizations not only get access to the state leaders, they can get access to the leaders in the executive branch.

Utilities also donated $271,575 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, and $65,450.00 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association over the same period, according to the report. Republicans are hoping to defend 18 attorneys general seats in 2018 and pick up additional seats, including the 2017 attorney general race in Virginia.

UtilitySecrets.org gathered their data fromfilingsdetailing expenditures and funders recently submitted to the IRS by the governor and attorneys general associations.

Read the rest here:
Top utilities are spending a lot of money to elect Republican governors - ThinkProgress

Congressional candidate Katie Hill was sitting around a kitchen table with a local activist group last spring when one of the attendees asked her a question: Will she have to soft pedal her stance on any issues to unseat Republican Rep. Steve Knight in the 25th District?

The progressive Democrat started to answer, then paused to ask a person livestreaming the meeting on Facebook: This isnt going to be something that Im going to be blasted all over Facebook for, right?

After getting assurances that the video would only be available to a private group, Hill said one of the issues she cant discuss directly is single-payer healthcare.

"I shouldn't go into the district and talk about single-payer, right? Like, that word by itself is going to be something that just immediately turns off a lot of people," Hill said. "But, if I talk about how we need to make sure that everybody has access to healthcare and that it's affordable for everybody and how having a government option [is needed] at the very least, that is something people can really get behind. It's more about the way we talk about things than being very far apart on issues."

Courtesy of Katie Hill for Congress

Congressional candidate Katie Hill

Congressional candidate Katie Hill (Courtesy of Katie Hill for Congress)

The video, which was posted online to the storage site Dropbox and shared with the Los Angeles Times this week, shows the delicate line some Democratic candidates are walking as the national party goes after the more than 30 seats it needs to win back control of the House. The idea of a single-payer healthcare system, in which the government pays for a base level of healthcare for all citizens, has been growing in popularity in party circles since it became a major policy plank in Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. But it remains a nonstarter for many conservatives, and is unlikely to catch on in a Republican-controlled Congress and White House.

The path to a House Democratic majority goes through the seven California Republican-held districts that backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. That includes places like the 25th District, where voters have sent Republicans to Congress for decades, but Democrats have a 3-percentage-point voter registration lead and voters there chose Clinton by nearly 7 percentage points in 2016.

Hill said in an interview that she believes the country will eventually have single-payer healthcare, but using the term puts off people in a district with a large number of conservative voters. Hill said she asked whether the video shot during a May 2 gathering for the liberal activist group Indivisible would be widely shared because talking to a liberal group is different than talking to the general public.

Look, is it the best idea to be talking about the strategy for how we frame conversations? Probably I wouldnt be advised thats what I should say, Hill said.

Hill has spoken publicly about her wish for every person to have healthcare, and paying out of pocket for her teenage brothers drug addiction treatment. But she said achieving a single-payer healthcare system shouldnt be prioritized over working for healthcare solutions in the interim, including practical fixes to the system that both sides can embrace.

It comes down to having nuanced discussions, Hill said. As purple districts, we have the opportunity to say, No, we cant have these binary conversations.

Healthcare is expected to be a key issue in the 2018 contests.

Democrats are already lambasting GOP lawmakers, including Knight, for backing their party's House healthcare bill in May. Knight has said it was a tough vote, but he thinks it was the right bill to address changes needed to the Affordable Care Act, and he isnt worried about Democrats using it against him.

At the same time, some have threatened to make support for single-payer healthcare a litmus test for Democrats. Our Revolution, a political group inspired by Sanders, threatened primary challenges this week against Democrats who arent vocal about it.

Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution, told Politico, "We're not going to accept no more hemming and hawing. No more game playing. Make your stand."

Backers of single-payer healthcare in California are also trying to recall Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon because he shelved a bill to create a state system earlier this year.

But the National Republican Congressional Committee is trying to use single-payer healthcare against Democrats. Just last week, it went after another Democrat in the race against Knight, Bryan Caforio, over whether he supports a single-payer system. He has said for months that he does, although Caforio, like Hill, doesnt use the phrase. Hes more likely to refer to Medicare for all.

This is a universal human rights issue and Im going to talk about that in the district, Caforio said.

Caforio lost to Knight in 2016 by 6 percentage points. Three other Democrats have announced challenges, but Caforio and Hill have an early fundraising lead.

sarah.wire@latimes.com

Follow @sarahdwire on Twitter

Read more about the 55 members of California's delegation at latimes.com/politics

ALSO:

'May you die in pain': California GOP congressman gets an earful at town hall

Steve Knight faces heated questions about Trump policies at town hall

More here:
How does a progressive Democrat try to unseat a Republican? Step one: Don't talk about single-payer healthcare - Los Angeles Times

Wherever regeneration of social housing has been outsourced to private developers, responsiveness, transparency, oversight and scrutiny are lessened for those most directly affected. Grenfell Tower. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images

Residents at Grenfell Tower describe how, as the local council outsourced contracts to private companies to work on their estate, essential elements of local democracy became unavailable to them. Their voices werent heard, information they requested wasnt granted, outcomes they were promised did not transpire, complaints they made were not answered. The outcome at Grenfell was unique in its scale but the background is a common enough story. Wherever regeneration of social housing has been outsourced to private developers, responsiveness, transparency, oversight and scrutiny key elements of healthy democracy are lessened for those most directly affected.

Outsourcing of public services began in the 1980s, a central feature of the drive to roll back what neoliberalism casts as a bureaucratic, inefficient state. Its proponents claimed the involvement of private providers would increase cost-savings and efficiency, and improve responsiveness to the consumers of public services. Thirty years later, the value of these contracts is enormous more than 120bn worth of government business was awarded to private companies between 2011 and 2016, and their number is increasing rapidly. At least 30% of all public outsourcing contracts are with local authorities.

Unlike government, private companies have no duty to provide for any public interest; the laws of the market mean their primary motive must be to maximise returns for shareholders. Questions have been raised about whether corruption or misuse of public office for private gain contributed to the Grenfell disaster; but the nature of outsourcing public services means that even the most well-meaning politicians can enter into contracts that result in severe detriment to the public, in both financial and human terms, without any crime having been committed.

The relationship between local councils and companies bidding for contracts is usually highly unequal. Local government funding cuts have caused a reduction in resources dedicated to providing scrutiny and oversight. The Audit Commission, previously responsible for scrutinising local authority contracts, has been abolished. The private companies involved, often huge multinationals, have significant advantage over local authorities in terms of technical knowledge and negotiating experience.

If its hard for councillors to evaluate and oversee these contracts it is nigh on impossible for the people using and experiencing services to apply scrutiny to the contracts governing their delivery. Commercial confidentiality is frequently cited as a reason for not disclosing the information necessary to assess contract content and services, when delivered by the private sector, are not subject to the rules on freedom of information that apply to local government.

Attempting to use opportunities promised in legislation when the Audit Commission was abolished, residents in Lambeth, London, recently undertook a peoples audit of the councils accounts. The resident audit group included highly experienced finance professionals, who spent hundreds of hours chasing information requests and working their way through poor quality data. The published report claims to have identified numerous instances of inadequate governance of contracts, including questionable valuations of council property and land, systematic overcharging and billing for work that wasnt carried out. The report calculates financial losses that run into millions.

Politicians can enter into contracts that result in detriment to the public without any crime having been committed

In the London borough of Haringey, council leaders are planning the highest value local government-private sector contract in history. It was never presented in any manifesto on which voters could express their opinions or make their voices heard. The deal involves placing 2bn worth of council homes, property and land into a new development vehicle that will demolish and rebuild vast swaths of the area. This new entity will be 50% owned by private company Lendlease, a multinational property company with a turnover of billions of dollars.

Lendlease has form when it comes to contracts with the public sector. Its redevelopment of the Heygate estate in Southwark initially promised 500 social homes, that number reduced to just 82 in the final plan only 20 have so far been built. It has made millions of pounds from its contracts with Southwark council.

Five years ago the company admitted fraud in government contracts in the US. Three years ago an Australian local government deal resulted in the authority being hundreds of millions of dollars out of pocket. In 2016, the company was named in an investigation into noncompliance with building regulations in Melbourne, Victoria, for using highly flammable cladding on a public hospital construction project, although subsequently Lendlease has offered to replace the cladding in the spring at no charge to the taxpayer, and says test panels were successfully installed in May.

In Haringey, local campaigners have found it almost impossible to examine the content of the Lendlease contract. Senior councillors have ignored the overview and scrutiny committees advice against the deal, and campaigners now plan to challenge it via judicial review. Although the councillors responsible for agreeing the deal may no longer be in power come next Mays local elections, its consequences will outlive many political careers. Any future council wanting to reverse the deal will be breaking the terms of the contract, and that is likely to incur financial penalties which will impact heavily on all the boroughs residents. So where is the accountability?

Less than 90 years after the right to vote was extended to all men and women in the UK regardless of wealth, the practice of outsourcing government services to private companies is rendering democracy ineffective, particularly for those most affected. While we could attempt again to insert more transparency and accountability into these opaque agreements, it may just be simpler, and more cost-effective, to return responsibility for government provision where it belongs back in-house with the people elected to represent us.

Pilgrim Tucker is a housing campaigner who supported the Grenfell Tower residents campaign, Grenfell Action Group

See the original post:
Outsourcing is killing local democracy in Britain. Here's how we can stop that - The Guardian

Mr. Kara maintained that Israels actions were compatible with democracy, given this alleged incitement. But neither he nor anyone else from the government offered any specific evidence of incitement on Al Jazeera. The internationally recognized Johannesburg Principles set a high threshold for incitement: Direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence must be shown. These principles were adopted by international law experts in 1995 and endorsed by Abid Hussain, who was at the time the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression.

Mhamed Krichen, a senior news anchor at Al Jazeera and a board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists, rejected the charge. Israel always accused us of incitement, Mr. Krichen told me. I remember Shimon Peres, Israels former president and prime minister, did it in a live interview on my show a few years ago, but only now its politically convenient for Israel to act on it. (Paradoxically, by shutting down Al Jazeera, the Israeli government would be silencing one of the few Arab media outlets that regularly invite Israeli officials on air.)

By politically convenient, Mr. Krichen was alluding to Israels increasingly close relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as to Mr. Netanyahus loss in the standoff over the Aqsa Mosque. Al Jazeera, Mr. Krichen said, showed live coverage of the protests and posted images of an Israeli officer kicking a man while he was praying.

The steps against Al Jazeera come amid an escalating Israeli crackdown on journalists more broadly. Israeli authorities recently raided the West Bank offices of the pro-Hamas channel Al Quds TV, the pro-Hezbollah channel Al Manar and the Russian government-funded broadcaster RT under suspicion of incitement. At the time of the Committee to Protect Journalists most recent annual census of imprisoned journalists, in December, Israel was holding seven in jail, four of them on incitement accusations.

Israel bills itself as a democracy while in the same breath defending its decision on Al Jazeera by noting the example set by Saudi Arabias absolute monarchy and Egypts military dictatorship. It is true that the government in Jerusalem will need to jump through more hoops than did the Arab states to shut Al Jazeera down. But if Mr. Netanyahus government succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent within Israel.

Sherif Mansour (@sherifmnsour) is the Middle East and North Africa program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 11, 2017, in The International New York Times.

Visit link:
'The Mideast's Only Democracy' Goes to War on Press Freedom - New York Times

Thailand faces the risk of discord between appointed senators and elected representativesafter its expected return to democracy next year, according to former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Critics say the countrys 20th constitution will lead toan upper chamber that gives appointed soldiers, judges and bureaucrats the power to stifle politicians voted into the House of Representatives. Abhisit said if a coalition or single party manages to achieve a lower-house majority, senators could in theory try to block its candidate for prime minister.

Photographer: Amanda Mustard/Bloomberg

"There could well be a tug-of-war after the election,"the 53-year-old leader of the Democrat Party said in an interview on Aug. 8 in Bangkok. "I dont subscribe to the view that the way its written means that the senators can call the shots. Its not as easy as some people think."

General Prayuth Chan-Ocha seized power in Thailand over three years ago after a period of political unrest, pledging to restore stability. A date for elections has yet to be announced, but Abhisit said he expected curbs on political parties to ease before the end of 2017 and polls in the second half of next year, if Prayuths military government sticks to its road map.

"If there is chaos, if there is instability, we could be in a different game," he said. "I see no other reasons to deviate from the road map."

If no single party or alliance of parties emerges with a lower-house majority, then "obviously the senators can have their say," Abhisit said.

Government spokesman Werachon Sukondhapatipak couldnt immediately be reached for comment.

Thailands current stretch of military rule is one of the longest since the 1970s, in a country with a history of coups since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932. Protests have flared over the past decade along class and regional lines.

Allies of exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, who introduced cheap health care and bolstered price support for farmers, have won the past five elections, only to be ousted by either the courts or military.

Abhisits party hasnt won a majority in a nationwide vote since 1992. He was picked by legislators in December 2008 after a court dissolved the pro-Thaksin ruling party for election fraud. The decision coincided with the seizure of Bangkoks airports by protesters wearing yellow shirts who oppose Thaksin.

Prayuths military administration has championed ambitious infrastructure programs, the development of advanced industries and greater adoption of technology to help kick-start investment and bolster Thai economic growth.

A substantial current-account surplus and foreign buying of Thai bonds have made the baht Asias best-performing currency this year. The Bank of Thailand predicts 3.5 percent economic growth in 2017, which would be the fastest in five years but still lag behind neighbors in emerging Southeast Asia.

"We hear up and down the country people complaining about the economy," Abhisit said. "They feel that elections, when they happen, will be a real opportunity for the economy to pick up."

Thailands latest charter, promulgated in April, also provides for a two-decade national strategy. The military government is crafting it and says the plan will guide future administrations.

Photographer: Amanda Mustard/Bloomberg

Abhisit,who led Thailand from 2008 to 2011, said that could be another potential flash-point, since an elected government will seek to implement its promises and pledges.

"If the national strategy needs to be amended, it has to be amended," he said.

Recent experiences such as Brexit and the rise of President Donald Trump underline the unpredictability of the electoral process, he added.

"There is going to be a fair bit of tension," Abhisit said. "My advocacy for the senators to respect the will of the people is based on the rationale that that is the only way to ensure that there will not be fundamental conflicts."

Continue reading here:
Thailand's Return to Democracy May Raise Tension - Bloomberg - Bloomberg