Tag Archives: corporations

Mayor Mike Bloomberg Will Spend $12 Million to Push Gun Control Through Congress

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg wants new gun control legislation so bad that he’s set to spend a staggering $12 million of his own money on ads targeting US senators in a dozen states.

As the New York Times reports, Bloomberg’s new wave of ads, which begin on Monday, support universal background checks for nearly all gun purchases, but do not mention a ban on assault weapons. The ads, run under the auspices of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group funded and co-chaired by Bloomberg, will target Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Patrick Toomey (R-Penn.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).


Gunmakers and the NRA Bet Big on Silencers. What Could Go Wrong?


EXCLUSIVE: Unmasking the NRA’s Inner Circle


Meet the NRA’s Board of Directors


The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys


How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF


Does the NRA Really Have 4 Million Members?


How the NRA and Its Allies Helped Spread a Radical Gun Law Nationwide

Bloomberg’s $12 million ad buy further cements his position as the main political force challenging the clout of the National Rifle Association. For decades, the NRA has used its money and manpower to oust politicians who support any new regulation of guns in America. The threat of NRA attacks helped stifle any effort at new gun laws, including requiring background checks for most gun purchases and reinstating the ban on assault rifles, which expired in 2004. Now, by pumping money into Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Independence USA, his super-PAC, Bloomberg hopes to counter the might of the NRA, while giving cover to pro-gun-control legislators.

Here’s more from the Times on Bloomberg’s new ad blitz:

In each state, the commercials urge support for the measure to require background checks for nearly all firearms purchases, not just those in gun stores, the most debated element of the legislation and a coveted goal of gun control advocates.

Mr. Bloomberg has singled out Mr. Flake, who already voted against the expansion of background checks in the Senate Judiciary Committee, by producing a special, scolding commercial aimed at Arizona. “Flake’s vote,” the ad declares, equals “no background checks for dangerous criminals.”

The mayor, who over the years has spent tens of millions of dollars to support his favored candidates, holds the power to use his “super-PAC” to wield influence in the midterm Congressional elections next year and beyond. He said he would heavily favor “candidates who will stop people from getting killed.”

“There is an easy measure of how you decide who those are,” he said, noting that gun rights groups rate lawmakers. “The NRA keeps score of it for you. They are public information.”

To those who might fear his financial might, he added: “If they pass sensible gun legislation, there is not an issue.”

Bloomberg has scored a handful of recent gun-related victories. He pumped nearly $10 million into Independence USA in the 2012 elections; the super-PAC went on to spend $3 million to defeat Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), a pro-gun rights congressman. Independence USA also spent millions last month in the Democratic primary for Illinois’ 2nd congressional district to defeat Debbie Halvorson, who had an “A” rating from the NRA. Democrat Robin Kelly, whom Bloomberg supported, ultimately cruised to victory.

The NRA has said it plans to fire back at Bloomberg with an advertising campaign of its own. And an NRA lobbyist told the Times that it’s confident that many Americans won’t buy into Bloomberg’s message. “What he is going to find out is that Americans don’t want to be told by some elitist billionaire what they can eat, drink and they damn well don’t want to be told how, when and where they can protect their families,” Chris Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist, said.

Mother Jones
Read more: 

Mayor Mike Bloomberg Will Spend $12 Million to Push Gun Control Through Congress

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mayor Mike Bloomberg Will Spend $12 Million to Push Gun Control Through Congress

Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods Won’t Sell GM Salmon

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the Guardian website.

A number of US supermarket chains pledged on Wednesday not to sell genetically modified salmon, in a sign of growing public concern about engineered foods on the dinner table.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the final stages of deciding whether to allow GM salmon on to the market. If approved, AquaBounty Technology’s salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal to enter the food supply.

The company combined genes from two species of salmon with a pouter eel to produce a fish it says it can bring to market twice as fast as conventional salmon.

The GM salmon is the first in some 30 other species of genetically engineered fish under development, including tilapia. Researchers are also working to bring GM cows, chickens, and pigs to market.

Continue Reading »

Mother Jones
Follow this link – 

Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods Won’t Sell GM Salmon

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods Won’t Sell GM Salmon

Conservatives Outraged About Mountaintop Removal in Tennessee… By Chinese Company

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

What’s it take to get conservatives in Tennessee fired up about blowing up mountains? China, apparently.

On Tuesday, the Tennessee Conservative Union, which bills itself as the state’s “largest and oldest conservative group,” started running anti-mountaintop removal coal mining ads on television throughout the state. Their complaint? The Chinese company Guizhou Guochuang Energy Holding Group announced last year that it is acquiring Triple H Coal Mining, which does mountaintop removal. The Tennessee Conservative Union ad warns that they will become “the first state in our great nation to permit the red Chinese to destroy our mountains and take our coal.”

“We’re proud that Tennessee is a red state,” the ad concludes. “But just how red are we willing to go?”

The ad comes off as anti-China, but it also offers a critique of mountaintop removal coal mining in general, which is the big news here. The ad comes just a day before committees in both the state Senate and House are expected to vote on the Scenic Vistas Protection Act, a bill activists have been trying to get passed in the state for six years. The measure would make it illegal to blow up mountaintops to mine coal. Supporters are taking TCU’s support for the bill as a sign that it might gain more traction this year.

“The Tennessee Conservative Union is 100% pro-Coal, but our organization does not support destroying our mountain heritage,” TCU Chairman Lloyd Daugherty said in a statement Tuesday. “Mountaintop removal mining kills jobs because it takes fewer workers to blow up a mountain.”

JW Randolph, Tennessee director of Appalachian Voices, a group that has been working to pass the anti-mountaintop removal law, welcomed the ad. “We don’t care if you’re from Bristol or Beijing, blowing up the oldest mountains in America for a few tons of coal is a bad idea,” he said.

Here’s TCU’s ad:

Mother Jones
Continue reading: 

Conservatives Outraged About Mountaintop Removal in Tennessee… By Chinese Company

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservatives Outraged About Mountaintop Removal in Tennessee… By Chinese Company

Elizabeth Warren Goes After NRA, Big Banks, GOP

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Since joining Congress, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has been fighting to penalize bad banks, expand consumer protections, and confirm Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she helped create in 2011. Yesterday she took her message to the Consumer Federation of America. “I know I’m preaching to the choir,” Warren told the group’s members, “but it is time for Washington to stop protecting a handful of the big guys.”

Warren said the 43 Senate Republicans who sent a letter to President Obama demanding a change of structure at the CFPB were trying to weaken the agency, and she called the NRA’s attempts to limit data gathering on gun violence “dangerous.”

Watch a portion of the speech, and read her full prepared remarks below.

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/620538-elizabeth-warren-cfa-remarks-03142013-3.js”,
width: 630,
height: 450,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-620538-elizabeth-warren-cfa-remarks-03142013-3”
);

Elizabeth Warren CFA Remarks – March 14, 2013 (PDF)

Elizabeth Warren CFA Remarks – March 14, 2013 (Text)

Mother Jones
Visit site:

Elizabeth Warren Goes After NRA, Big Banks, GOP

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren Goes After NRA, Big Banks, GOP

Elizabeth Warren Goes After NRA, Big Banks, GOP

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Since joining Congress, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has been fighting to penalize bad banks, expand consumer protections, and confirm Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she helped create in 2011. Yesterday she took her message to the Consumer Federation of America. “I know I’m preaching to the choir,” Warren told the group’s members, “but it is time for Washington to stop protecting a handful of the big guys.”

Warren said the 43 Senate Republicans who sent a letter to President Obama demanding a change of structure at the CFPB were trying to weaken the agency, and she called the NRA’s attempts to limit data gathering on gun violence “dangerous.”

Watch a portion of the speech, and read her full prepared remarks below.

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/620538-elizabeth-warren-cfa-remarks-03142013-3.js”,
width: 630,
height: 450,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-620538-elizabeth-warren-cfa-remarks-03142013-3”
);

Elizabeth Warren CFA Remarks – March 14, 2013 (PDF)

Elizabeth Warren CFA Remarks – March 14, 2013 (Text)

Mother Jones
Visit link:

Elizabeth Warren Goes After NRA, Big Banks, GOP

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren Goes After NRA, Big Banks, GOP

"I Can’t Keep This Going": How JPMorgan Chase Changed Its Own Risk Rules and Lost $6 Billion

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last May, JPMorgan Chase, the biggest bank in America, lost $6 billion on a risky bet placed by its London office. So far, the bank has been punished with a slap on the wrist, but this week the Senate released a major report and held a Friday hearing on the debacle. The report shows that in the run up to the massive loss, JPMorgan Chase ignored its own risk controls, used fancy math to reduce estimates of losses, and blocked the flow of information to regulators. Regulators, meanwhile, first fell asleep on the job and then tried to downplay the incident.

The bank and its regulators should have seen problems coming. The risks JPMorgan Chase was taking on were so obvious that Bruno Iskil, the trader who made the giant bet, told a colleague last year that the way the bank was cooking its books was “getting idiotic,” and said, “I can’t keep this going,” according to the report. One way the bank “kept this going” was by ignoring its own rules. In the first four months of last year alone, the London office broke its risk regulations 330 times. In order to avoid those pesky rules, JPMorgan Chase simply changed how it measured risk, with approval for those changes going all the way up to CEO Jamie Dimon himself.

JPMorgan Chase managers also “pressured” its traders to lowball losses by some $660 million over several months by changing how they calculated them, the report says.

The bank did send its regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, reports revealing it was breaking its risk rules by the hundreds, but the OCC officials at Friday’s Senate hearing said that they were more focused on what they considered “riskier” parts of the bank.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which held the hearing, asked one OCC official if the bank’s fancy new risk measurements should have been a “red flag.” The OCC official said yes.

JPMorgan Chase didn’t just ignore its own rules—it ignored the government’s rules, too. For several weeks last year, the bank simply stopped giving profit and loss reports to the OCC because Dimon said “it was too much information to provide.” Dimon, who is accused of withholding information about the daily losses, allegedly raised “his voice in anger” at a deputy who later turned over the info, the report says.

The bank “failed to send regular reports in…the same months the trade tripled size,” Levin said. “Why…did OCC examiners that oversaw the London office not ask the bank for the missing reports until mid-April after the media storm?”

“This is something we should have been all over from Day One,” admitted Scott Waterhouse, the main OCC official in charge of overseeing JPMorgan Chase.

And what about “If the OCC had required the London office to document its investment decisions?…Would it have learned of the trade earlier?” Levin asked. Yes, OCC officials said. “There were red flags we failed to notice and act upon,” Tom Curry, the comptroller of the currency, admitted.

“The skepticism and demand for hard evidence that might be expected of bank regulators were absent,” the Senate report concluded.

Maybe that’s why regulators tried to play down the crisis after the fact. The day after JPMorgan Chase announced its loss, the head of the OCC’s Large Bank Supervision division, Michael Brosnan, told Curry the trades were not that big a deal, calling it an “embarrassment issue,” and adding that “at end of day, they are good at financial risk management. But they are human and will make mistakes.”

Mother Jones
Continue reading – 

"I Can’t Keep This Going": How JPMorgan Chase Changed Its Own Risk Rules and Lost $6 Billion

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, Ts Books, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "I Can’t Keep This Going": How JPMorgan Chase Changed Its Own Risk Rules and Lost $6 Billion

Name Calling Won’t Save Shrinking Glaciers and Disappearing Islands

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Greedy Lying Bastards
One Earth Productions
90 minutes

If there’s one thing that the new film Greedy, Lying Bastards succeeds at is making the viewer want to shout expletives at the screen. But it’s not always for the reasons filmmaker Craig Scott Rosebraugh intended.

The documentary, which opened in theaters last Friday, looks at the money flowing between energy Goliaths like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, their PR agencies, and the politicians who, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of calamitous man-made climate change, have managed to block carbon emission regulations. It demonstrates that for more than 20 years, these titans of Texas tea and their lackeys have systematically derailed the discourse on climate change, employing the politics of subterfuge to keep major environmental regulations off the table.

Continue Reading »

Mother Jones
Visit source: 

Name Calling Won’t Save Shrinking Glaciers and Disappearing Islands

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Name Calling Won’t Save Shrinking Glaciers and Disappearing Islands

Coal Giant’s $10 Million Loan to Democrats Is Now a $10 Million Donation

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last summer, with organizers struggling to raise enough money for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., party planners turned to Duke Energy, headquartered in Charlotte, for help. Duke, the nation’s largest utility company, stepped up with a $10 million line of credit for the convention. Organizers insisted Duke would be repaid after the convention.

Or…not.

A Duke Energy official told the Charlotte Observer on Thursday that Democratic officials would not repay the $10 million they owe the company. Instead, Duke Energy will write off the loan as a business expense. Shareholders are expected to absorb $6 million of the cost of the loan.

In effect, Duke Energy’s “loan” has turned out to be a $10 million contribution to the Democratic convention. Duke CEO Jim Rogers hinted at this possibility in an interview with the Observer last month, when it was becoming clear the Democrats might not repay the company. “At the end of the day, we’ll do our best to get our money back,” he said. “But if we don’t, it’s just a contribution we’re making I think for the greater good of our community.”

The decision by Democratic organizers not to repay the loan smacks of hypocrisy. In the run-up to the convention, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chair of the Democratic National Committee, vowed that convention organizers would not accept corporate money. “We will make this the first convention in history that does not accept any funds from lobbyists, corporations, or political action committees,” she said. Yet even before the Duke loan became a straight-up donation, various convention committees revealed that they accepted corporate money. One committee took in at least $5 million in corporate money to rent Charlotte’s Time Warner Cable area and a million more in in-kind contributions from AT&T, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and Costco.

Asked about this hypocrisy, Democratic officials have responded by noting that their anti-corporate-cash pledge was self-imposed. Legally, they could use corporate money to fund their convention. Which, in the end, is precisely what they did.

View post: 

Coal Giant’s $10 Million Loan to Democrats Is Now a $10 Million Donation

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal Giant’s $10 Million Loan to Democrats Is Now a $10 Million Donation

This Supreme Court Case Could Give Corporations Even More Power to Screw Consumers

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear a case that has the potential to give big corporations free rein to write contracts that prevent consumers from ever holding them accountable for fraud, antitrust violations, or any other abuses of consumer and worker protection laws now on the books. It’s a case that hasn’t gotten much attention, but should.

The case, Italian Color v. American Express, was brought by a California Italian restaurant and a group of other small businesses that tried to sue the credit card behemoth for antitrust violations. They allege Amex used its monopoly power to force them to accept its bank-issued knock-off credit cards as a condition of taking regular, more elite American Express cards—and then charging them 30 percent higher fees for the privilege.

The small businesses claims were pretty small individually, not more than around $5,000 per shop. So, to make their case worth enough for a lawyer to take it, they banded together to file a class action on behalf of all small businesses affected by the practice. In response, Amex invoked the small print in its contract with them: a clause that not only banned the companies from suing individually but also prevented them from bringing a class action. Instead, Amex insisted the contract required each little businesses to submit to the decision of a private arbitrator paid by Amex, and individually press their claims. (Arbitration is heavily stacked in favor of the big companies, as you can read more about here and here.)

The restaurants estimated, with good evidence, that because of the market research required to press an antitrust case, arbitration would cost each of them almost $1 million to collect a possible maximum of $38,000, making it impossible to bring their claims at all. After a lot of litigation, the little guys prevailed in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the arbitration clause was unconscionable because it prevented the plaintiffs from having their claims heard in any forum. The court said the arbitration contract should be invalidated and that the class action should go forward in a regular courtroom. (Sonia Sotomayor sat on one of the appeals before heading to the high court and is recusing herself from the case as a result.) Now Amex is appealing and arguing that some of the high court’s recent decisions in favor of big companies mean it has every right to use contracts to deprive the little guys of access to the legal system.

Consumer advocates are worried about how the court’s going to decide this case. Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has been especially amenable to the sorts of arguments Amex is making, and the results have been pretty damaging to consumers. The Alliance for Justice has a list here of some of the types of cases that were thrown out after the court’s last pro-business decision about mandatory arbitration, which allowed companies to use arbitration clauses to trump state consumer and worker protection laws. It’s not pretty.

If the court rules in favor of Amex, big companies will essentially be able to immunize themselves from any legal accountability, simply by forcing customers and employees to sign a contract to get a job or a cellphone or a bank account. Civil and consumer rights laws will stay on the books, but big companies will be able to ignore them.

Taken from: 

This Supreme Court Case Could Give Corporations Even More Power to Screw Consumers

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on This Supreme Court Case Could Give Corporations Even More Power to Screw Consumers

The Supreme Court Won’t Hear "Citizens United on Steroids" Case

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

That whooshing sound you just heard was campaign finance reformers breathing a deep sigh of relief. On Monday morning, the Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit named Danielczyk v. United States, a challenge to one of the oldest laws in campaign politics: the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

The case stems from donations that two Virginia businessmen, William Danielczyk and Eugene Biagi, made to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Danielczyk and Biagi gave to Clinton’s campaign under the impression that they would be reimbursed by the private equity firm that employed them. Instead Danielczyk and Biagi were prosecuted by the Department of Justice for violating the century-old ban on corporate contributions. They responded by fighting to dismiss the charges. Their attorneys argued that the Supreme Court’s logic in the Citizens United case—that independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of corruption—applied to donations directly to candidates. Thus the ban on corporate donations, they argued, was unconstitutional. In 2011, a federal district court agreed with Danielczyk’s lawyers and dismissed the charges, but the case was later reversed on appeal.

When Danielczyk reached the Supreme Court, supporters of tougher campaign finance laws feared that the court might go even further than Citizens United by demolishing the ban on direct corporate donations, one of the last remaining pillars of campaign finance law in US. They had reason to worry: Last week, the high court agreed to the hear the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, another troublesome case in the eyes of the reformers. McCutcheon challenges the overall cap on what donors can give to candidates, parties, and political action committees, currently set at $46,200 to federal candidates and $70,800 to parties and PACs over a two-year election cycle. That limit is nearly 40 years old, dating back to the post-Watergate era, and if it falls, the reformers fear that future challenges to, say, the limit on donating to a candidate (now at $2,600 a year) could fall, too.

The Supreme Court could, sometime down the road, reconsider the corporate donation ban. But for now, the reformers have received a small bit of good news at an otherwise bleak point in the political money wars.

Read article here:

The Supreme Court Won’t Hear "Citizens United on Steroids" Case

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Won’t Hear "Citizens United on Steroids" Case