Miller: State lawmakers need to face reality | Northwest Herald

The Illinois Senate had been scheduled to return to Springfield on Tuesday after not being in session since Sept. 9. Last week, however, the Senate president postponed session until Oct. 20. The reason is pretty straightforward. The Senate has overridden several gubernatorial vetoes. It’s pretty easy for the majority party because the chamber has 39 Democrats, three more than the three-fifths required to override a veto.

The House has 71 Democrats, the exact number of votes required to overturn a veto in that chamber. So, although Senate Democrats can be missing a few people or have some folks who don’t want to go along, they still can override the governor on partisan votes. The House Democrats need every member in town, and they all need to be voting the same way to succeed.

Because of that tight margin, and because Republicans have marched in lock step with their party’s governor, the House has overridden only one veto this year: the Heroin Crisis Act.

The House was able to override that bill only because Gov. Bruce Rauner allowed House Republicans to vote against his amendatory veto, which stripped state Medicaid funding for heroin addiction treatment. Rauner now gets to portray himself as fiscally conservative, while the Republicans got to do the right thing and make the much-needed criminal justice reform legislation an actual law.

To date, the governor and his staff have successfully fought off 62 override attempts, mainly in the House.

So much for Speaker Mike Madigan’s much-vaunted veto-proof House majority. Because of this House failure, there are no vetoes requiring Senate action during the constitutionally mandated 15-calendar-day period after successful House action. Since the legislative leaders aren’t meeting with the governor, and no other visible progress is being made to end the months-long stalemate, there really wasn’t much sense in coming back to town.

Just to show you how divided the statehouse is right now, the governor used his amendatory veto powers on 20 bills, but the Democrats adamantly refused to accept a single one of those changes he made. The Democrats even ignored a plea from the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws to accept the governor’s amendatory veto of House Bill 218, which vastly reduced penalties for pot possession. The governor tweaked the marijuana legislation to increase some of the penalties, but Illinois NORML said those changes were acceptable, and called his veto “a very easy win” for proponents.

The bill received only 62 votes in the House when it passed in April, so there was no way to override the governor. Instead of just accepting his changes, the legislation was allowed to die. Months of hard work came to diddly squat.

The House speaker traditionally is loathe to accept amendatory vetoes as a way of discouraging the governor (any governor) from using that broad power, which was long ago upheld by the courts. Rauner, for his part, is proving to be just as stubborn.

The end result is nothing happens.

We have a whole lot of nothing going on these days. For instance, a minor fuss was made recently at the statehouse when a city of Chicago honcho showed up to testify about Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s property tax proposal without having actual written legislation to talk about.

In reality, that thing ain’t going anywhere. So far, the governor is opposed to the plan, which would exempt homeowners with houses appraised at $250,000 or less from Emanuel’s massive property tax hike. The main burden would fall on commercial property owners, and Rauner has said their opposition is valid, and everyone’s property taxes should be capped at current levels – despite Chicago’s horrific fiscal problems.

As long as Rauner remains opposed, it’s highly unlikely the House could pass such a bill. House Democrats have yet to convince Republicans to break with their party’s governor on anything, and they’re surely not going to do so over a vote for Chicago, and it’s doubtful all downstate and suburban Democrats will go along without some relief for their own taxpayers.

The city is simply going to have to find another way to solve its problem, unless, and until, the governor and the legislative leaders work things out, which may be never at the rate they’re going. The Democrats can’t go around Rauner, they can’t go through him, they can’t go over him. Rauner, however, can’t get anything done without them. They all need to start facing reality here.

• Rich Miller publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Miller: State lawmakers need to face reality | Northwest Herald

Meet the Republicans who ousted John Boehner. They're just getting started. - CSMonitor.com

 

Washington — When the House broke for its August recess, Republican Rep. John Fleming went home to Louisiana to connect with voters. He got an earful.

He traveled the state, and whether he spoke with a lowly company employee, a middle manager, or a business owner, they all said the same thing: “They are very disappointed in how we Republicans are doing in Washington,” says Rep. Fleming, a physician elected in 2008.

Fleming says his constituents see a GOP-controlled Congress failing to check President Obama, even as federal regulations are hurting them personally. It doesn’t matter to them that the president has veto power, or that Democrats can still block Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate.

“They just don’t want to hear that. That’s an excuse to them,” he says in an interview. “They at least want a fight.”

In January, he and eight other hard-line Republicans formed the House Freedom Caucus to challenge the GOP leadership, which they claim is not fighting hard enough for Republican priorities. Now they’re bigger and they're emboldened. They just succeeded in driving out Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio, who recently stunned Washington with the news that he will retire from Congress on Oct. 30.

In the weeks ahead, the Freedom Caucus will have plentiful opportunities to push the fight further – from the speaker's race to a combustible mix of fiscal deadlines this fall. Though members say they have not yet settled on a strategy, one thing is certain: They are not afraid of government shutdowns, fiscal cliffs, or any other hardline tactics that typically made Boehner wince.

Republicans have not gotten what they wanted, they say, not because these gambits failed, but rather because leadership didn't commit to them, heart and soul.

And they want that to end now. 

Turmoil is not the problem

For this invitation-only group of about 40 members, which meets regularly at a Capitol Hill restaurant called the Tortilla Coast, the fight starts with the GOP's election for the speakership and other GOP leadership offices, which will take place in a secret ballot on Thursday.

Mr. Boehner said he wanted to spare his members and the institution the “turmoil” of an expected attempt to oust him. But to many conservatives, like the members of the Freedom Caucus, turmoil is not the problem. They want real change in the top-down way the House is run and are making demands.

That pressure bubbled over Sunday when Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) of Utah suddenly joined the race, challenging Boehner’s presumed successor, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R) of California. Congressman Chaffetz says he was "recruited" as an alternative to majority leader McCarthy. He doubts Boehner’s right-hand man can get enough conservatives to win a final floor vote for speaker without having to rely on Democrats. That vote will occur at the end of the month.

"You don't just give an automatic promotion to the existing leadership team," Chaffetz said on "Fox News Sunday." Voters “want us to take that fight to the Senate. They want us to take that fight to the president.”

Beyond the race for the speakership, the House has a to-do list chock full of pressure points for the Freedom Caucus, including debt, budget, and tax deadlines. Many in Washington are quaking over the deadlines. They remember previous cliff-hanger negotiations between the Obama administration and Republicans in Congress. They wonder whether the Freedom Caucus will trigger a government shutdown over federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the way hardliners did over Obamacare in 2013.

Caucus members see the coming weeks as an opportunity. Exactly what their fight will look like “is kind of fluid,” says Rep. Matt Salmon (R) of Arizona, another caucus founder. But “as we go forward, we’re going to consider anything and everything,” he said last week.

Whether Republicans are fighting hard enough for their priorities is a matter of opinion, and forms a dividing line in the party that runs from voters, to Congress, to the presidential race.

Sixty percent of Republican voters say they feel “betrayed” by their political party, according to a September Fox News poll. Two-thirds of GOP primary voters do not believe Republican majorities have done enough to block Obama’s agenda, the poll finds.

The benefits of a shutdown

“It’s somewhat subjective, 'Did you fight hard enough for your priorities?' With Boehner, the answer is, ‘No, you didn’t,’ ” says Matt Kibbe, the former head of the tea party advocacy group Freedom Works.

Mr. Kibbe is the kind of person Boehner means when he rails against “false prophets” who gin up the base with unrealistic promises. The speaker blames outside groups such as Freedom Works and Heritage Action for egging on the 2013 shutdown, a strategy he says was doomed to fail. He and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky have since vowed not to repeat a shutdown.

But Kibbe says it is Boehner who is the false prophet, promising in the 2010 GOP “Pledge to America” to roll back spending to 2008 levels and to repeal Obamacare if the Republicans won the House.

“You have to believe that they never meant it,” says Kibbe, who is now a senior adviser to Concerned American Voters, a super political action committee for GOP presidential candidate and libertarian, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“This idea that shutting down the government is a fundamental loser for Republicans – I just don’t buy it,” Kibbe continues. He notes that it was only after the shutdowns of 1995 and early ’96 that Republicans, under the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich, were able to strike a deal on welfare reform with President Clinton.

“Clinton took Gingrich seriously; Obama has never taken Boehner seriously.”

Fleming couldn’t agree more. He points to the stunning midterm election of 2014, which returned a historic number of Republicans to the House and handed the Senate to GOP control – despite the shutdown the year before.

Republicans rarely put a bill on the president’s desk that he doesn’t like, Fleming complains. Indeed, the president has only vetoed four bills in his seven years in office – though he’s made plenty of veto threats.

“We could be getting more than we’re getting now,” Fleming says. “By raising the white flag before the discussion debate even begins, we’ve already lost.”

Blackmailing your friends

Other Republicans – hardly moderates – don’t see it that way.

Take Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. He’s famous for his Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose tax increases. Most Republicans in Congress have signed it.

Ideologically, Republicans are more united today than ever, he says. What Republican is for Obamacare? Or for tax increases?

Under Boehner’s leadership, he notes, the House scrapped earmarks. Republicans negotiated permanent tax cuts for most Americans. They got budget caps and the first real spending cuts since the end of World War II. They reformed a part of Medicare in what’s known as the “Doc Fix.” They even sued the president.

“People take progress for granted,” says Mr. Norquist. “What you would like is not the question. I would like rubies and diamonds.... It's, 'What can you   accomplish?’ ”

In Congress, a backlash may be building against Freedom Caucus hardball tactics. Last month, a caucus member quit, saying tactics were harming, not helping, the GOP cause. Over in the Senate, Republican colleagues shouted down tea party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas last week over his procedural move related to spending and Planned Parenthood.

“There’s a lot of frustration. In some sense, this group treats Republicans like they’re their enemy,” says Rep. Tom Cole (R) of Oklahoma, a Boehner supporter. “It’s always inappropriate to try and blackmail your teammates.”

The Oklahoman understands the anger of Freedom Caucus members. The political roadblocks to the GOP agenda frustrate him, too, but anger clouds their judgment, he says. The caucus pursues things that “demonstrably don’t work,” such as threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security over the president’s immigration policy.

Cole hopes that a new speaker can help calm the waters. “I think we’ve got an opportunity for a little bit of a new beginning.”

Meet the Republicans who ousted John Boehner. They're just getting started. - CSMonitor.com

Koch Brothers, Mega Donors Warm To Carly Fiorina

 

By Michelle Conlin

NEW YORK, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Carly Fiorina has emerged as the Republican candidate of the moment in conservative fundraising circles, drawing the notice of the billionaire Koch brothers and other wealthy donors who could instantly remake her shoestring presidential campaign.

Fiorina's show-stealing performance in a Republican presidential debate last month, and her subsequent surge in the polls, has prompted industrialists Charles and David Koch to take a "serious look" at the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, according to three sources close to the brothers.

She has now moved to the short list of candidates the Kochs may support with their reported $1 billion war chest, the sources said. Florida Senator Marco Rubio is among those on the coveted list, the sources said.

A spokesman for the Kochs declined to comment

Other politically powerful mega donors are also lining up.

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens hosted a packed luncheon at a posh Dallas venue for Fiorina in late September, while venture capitalist Tom Perkins is planning a fundraising gala in California in the next few months.

"My money is on her," said Perkins, who served on HP's board during Fiorina's tenure. "I think she could be president."

As the only woman on stage at the Sept. 16 debate, Fiorina emerged as the most effective candidate in taking on front-runner Donald Trump, chastening the celebrity real estate magnate for his controversial comments about her looks.

"The emails have not stopped" since then, said seasoned California political fundraising consultant Karolyn Dorsee, who is working on behalf of several Republican presidential candidates, including Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. "Everybody wants her, nationwide, in every single state."

Even before her rapid rise in the polls - she has vaulted to second place in the key early voting state of New Hampshire - Fiorina had already garnered about $2 million in support from the likes of reclusive hedge fund baron Robert Mercer and former Univision CEO Jerrold Perenchio.

"SHE'S PRETTY VIABLE"

Fiorina's campaign now appears far less of a long-shot than it did over the summer, when she was struggling with sparse crowds, scant name recognition and a coffer of just $5 million that put her at the bottom of the money race.

Her campaign thus far has been a bare-bones operation, relying on a young, relatively low-paid, skeletal staff as opposed to the sprawling operations built by more well-endowed candidates like Bush.

Support from the Kochs would change her operation overnight.

"We think she's pretty viable," said broadcasting billionaire Stanley Hubbard, a member of the Koch brothers' network of conservative advocacy groups who donates heavily to political candidates.

The Kochs have been keeping a close eye on Fiorina ever since she announced in May, the Koch sources said. They extended an invite to her to speak at their exclusive summit of rich donors at an oceanfront luxury resort in August along with Rubio, Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Fiorina, the lowest polling candidate at the gathering, impressed the big money attendees with her mastery of policy detail and heavyweight stage presence. "She's good in the room," said one participant at the event, who declined to be named.

The Fiorina campaign, and the independent fund-raising Super PAC supporting her, declined comment.

The Kochs, who own America's second-largest private company, have backed Fiorina in the past, notably when she ran unsuccessfully against incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer for her California Senate seat in 2010.

At the time, the Kochs had helped mount a campaign for Proposition 23, a ballot measure designed to suspend the state law banning higher carbon emissions that was ultimately defeated.Fiorina also supported the measure. A Koch Industries PAC helped sponsor a Washington fundraiser for Fiorina at the time and gave $10,000 to her campaign.

As Fiorina's money problems fade, some high dollar donors who have already contributed are now considering doubling down. Dallas philanthropist Elloine Clark has so far written one $100,000 check to the Super PAC supporting Fiorina. She says she may give more. "I think she's unflappable," said Clark. "And she doesn't react like an adolescent." (Reporting By Michelle Conlin; Additional reporting Emily Stephenson in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Ross Colvin)

Koch Brothers, Mega Donors Warm To Carly Fiorina

Top economies move toward crackdown on corporate tax dodging - Yahoo Finance

 

PARIS (AP) -- Dozens of world economies are close to adopting sweeping changes to international tax rules that could end tax-dodging by powerful multinationals — practices believed to deprive governments of up to $240 billion every year.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released Monday a plan that, among other things, aims to end tax shelters and require companies to pay taxes in the countries where they earn profits.

Aid groups say it isn't tough enough and won't start fast enough. And business groups fear the rules won't be applied the same everywhere and will unfairly punish some companies.

But everyone agrees it's an ambitious plan. The OECD says its proposal represents "the most fundamental changes to international tax rules in almost a century."

Sixty-two governments, companies and non-governmental groups were involved in negotiating it. Finance ministers from the 20 leading world economies will discuss the plan in Peru on Thursday, and their leaders are expected to finalize it at a G-20 summit next month in Turkey.

Google, Facebook, Starbucks and Amazon are among many companies criticized for shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions.

Tackling corporate tax-dodging is especially important for developing countries that rely heavily on tax income to reduce poverty and build infrastructure. But it's also important for stagnant economies in Europe and elsewhere that are struggling to tax major global companies that make their money online.

Questions remain about how countries would put the measures in place — and crucially, how they'd be enforced.

Oxfam said in a statement Monday that corporations played too big a role in the negotiations. As a result, Oxfam said, the plan doesn't do enough to ensure that multinationals pay tax where they do business, and allows some practices to continue through 2021.

The International Chamber of Commerce warned of "significant challenges ahead to ensure rules are implemented in a coherent and coordinated fashion."

While the U.S. and other governments may not adopt all the OECD measures, global accounting firm KPMG urged corporations to take heed of Monday's announcement.

The plan should be "a call to action for many multinationals to focus on new transparency and reporting obligations that likely will become law in a number of countries," said Manal Corwin, a former U.S. Treasury official overseeing this issue for KPMG's international tax team.

Top economies move toward crackdown on corporate tax dodging - Yahoo Finance

Brock to Dems: Brace for $1 billion deluge from Koch brothers | T

 

Brock to Dems: Brace for $1 billion deluge from Koch brothers

829245

897

 

By Alexander Bolton - 10/03/15 10:34 AM EDT

David Brock urged Senate Democrats this week to look for ways to limit the political influence of billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who have vowed to spend millions in 2016.

But some political experts think striking at the Kochs is questionable in its effectiveness.

ADVERTISEMENT

Brock, one of Hillary Clinton’s chief defenders, and Democratic pollster Geoff Garin met with Senate Democrats on Thursday to discuss the strategies for minimizing the influence of Koch-backed groups such as Concerned Veterans for America and Generation Opportunity.

“I talked about why I thought this was an important issue to be raising,” Brock told The Hill. “The Kochs say they’re going to spend up to $1 billion in 2016. What are they spending it on? I talked about five different areas or capacities they were spending money on from message to data to advertising to grassroots organizing.”

Brock, who is chairman of a Democratic-aligned super PAC, founder of Media Matters for America  media watchdog group and founder of a group defending Clinton from political attacks, emphasized that Koch-backed political groups are active all the way down to the city-council level in Iowa.

“They have the capacity to be in every race they want to be in,” he said.

“They may well lose the next election but the lesson we have to learn this year is that they lost 2012 but they got up, they picked themselves up, they dusted themselves off and doubled down. This is a long-term challenge,” he said.

The challenge for Democrats isn’t just the Koch brothers, but the strategy the party uses to counter their efforts.

Some Democrats like the idea of an outside group filing a suit against what they call Koch-funded “front groups,” alleging fraud on the basis that they do not represent real constituencies.

Other Democrats are exploring the option of executive orders to force these groups to disclose their funders.

“I had no idea the breadth and depth of it,” said a Democratic senator who attended the meeting.

“I understand the First Amendment but if you’re saying one thing and doing another thing with malicious intent, that’s not covered,” the lawmaker said, suggesting a lawsuit by an outside ally might be welcome.

Brock’s super-PAC American Bridge has put out reports detailing the activity of Koch-backed groups that are trying to make inroads with key constituencies -- Hispanics, young people, women and veterans.

Brock argues these groups, LIBRE, Concerned Women for America, Concerned Veterans for America, and Generation Opportunity, are front groups that don’t really have the interests of the voters their targeting at heart.

“Concerned Veterans for America isn’t at all honest about who they are and who they support. They consistently represent themselves as a non-ideological group, just looking out for veterans. That’s not correct,” American Bridge wrote in a report. “The group promotes proposals that are extremely conservative in nature, and indeed, often opposed by every major Veterans Service Organization (VSO).”

Concerned Veterans for America declined to comment.

Freedom Partners, a group that has received substantial funding from Charles and David Koch, and has supported the advocacy organizations cited by Brock, pushed back against his allegations.

“Our efforts are focused on expanding opportunity for all Americans; theirs is about demonizing two private citizens who have created tens of thousands of jobs. The contrast is clear,” said James Davis, a spokesman for Freedom Partners.

Some Democratic strategists question whether bashing the Koch brothers is a sound political strategy, given that voters are most concerned about jobs and the economy.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took to the Senate floor dozens of times in the last election cycle to bash the Koch brothers but the strategy didn’t stop Democrats from losing nine seats in November.

Former White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer recently cautioned against relying too heavily on an anti-Koch message.

“Targeting the Kochs is a good tactic for generating donor activity and base enthusiasm and the Kochs are a good metaphor for GOP policies. The press shouldn’t confuse this tactic with an overall strategy, which is not what the Dems are doing,” he wrote on Sidewire, a Web forum for insiders and newsmakers.

Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” slammed Reid last year for pursuing what he called an ineffective strategy.

“This Koch brothers thing, it’s ridiculous,” Scarborough said at the height of the battle for control of the Senate.

“It doesn’t even work in Manhattan, where people thank God for David Koch,” he said inference to millions of dollars in philanthropic gifts. The ballet theatre at Lincoln Center is named after David Koch.

Garin, however, argued that Democratic candidates can gain traction against Republican opponents backed by Koch-funded groups.

He told Democratic senators that GOP candidates can be discredited if linked to the Koch brothers, pointing to data from focus groups conducted in August.

“If you tell people that these groups like Libre or Generation Opportunity that they’re Koch funded, it was very easy to discredit the group,” Brock told The Hill, summarizing Garin’s findings.

“If you tie unpopular aspects of the Koch agenda to the candidate, it raised questions in voters’ minds about the character of the candidate,” he added. “If they learned that the candidate was receiving Koch support, they very quickly drew the conclusion that that they were bought and paid for.”

Brock described the reception from senators “as entirely positive and encouraging. 

“We continue to follow the vast right wing conspiracy, which gets vaster and more conspiratorial. We got a briefing on that,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) after the meeting. 

“We’re going to continue to [push] the idea that the American people should decide elections. Not just people who have the deep pockets to buy the election,” she said.

Brock to Dems: Brace for $1 billion deluge from Koch brothers | T

Representative Wants Special Session | Alton Daily News

 

At least one Republican member of the General Assembly says Gov. Bruce Rauner should call a special session until a budget agreement is reached.
State Rep. David McSweeney (R-Barrington Hills) says Rauner should keep members of the General Assembly in Springfield until the state budget stalemate ends.
Rauner has maintained he wants his legislative agenda considered before he’ll agree to a tax hike in this year’s budget. McSweeney says he supports the governor’s proposals, but fears the long-term damage being done to the state due to court-ordered spending outpacing revenue.

“I don’t think anyone knew how this was going to turn out, but it’s been a failed experiment,” McSweeney said. “It’s not working. Nothing good is happening. Mark me down as a yes on the governor’s agenda. Let’s get it over with, let’s vote on it.”
McSweeney may be alone on the Republican side in believing a special session is the solution. State Rep. Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove) says it’d be a waste of time.
“Being hauled down there to stare at one another in hopes that that brings an end to gridlock I think is largely wishful thinking,” Sandack said.
Sandack himself had called for a similar open-ended special session to settle the pension reform debate in 2013, but he feels what McSweeney is advocating would be “futile.”
Illinois is now into its fourth month of the fiscal year with no budget being in place, and lawmakers aren’t set to return to the Capitol until October 20

Representative Wants Special Session | Alton Daily News

RICO for climate deniers

 

 

The following is the text of a letter written by a number of scientists asking for a federal investigation of climate science denial under the RICO statute.

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

Above is from:  BruceS — RICO for climate deniers