Turmoil in GOP Initiative Effort in California, Giuliani Fundraiser Sole Contributor

Good news for Democrats - the Los Angeles Times reports that the GOP initiative effort in California to change California's winner take all primary to one giving electoral votes based on Congressional Districts is "in shambles".

"Unable to raise sufficient money and angered over a lack of disclosure by its one large donor, veteran political law attorney Thomas Hiltachk, who drafted the measure, said he was resigning from the committee.

Hiltachk's departure is a major blow to the operation because he organized other consultants who had tried to raise money and gather signatures. Campaign spokesman Kevin Eckery said he was ending his role as well.

There remained a chance that the measure could be revived, but only if a major donor were to come forward to fund the petition drive. But time is short to gather the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed by the end of November. Backers said Thursday that they believed the measure was all but dead, at least for the 2008 election.

The New York Times reports Hiltachk resigned in a dispute over a $175,000 contribution received from a group formed only one day before it made the contribution to the California group. The Missouri group called itself "Take Initiative America" but would not identify who its contributors were. Hiltachk was quoted as saying "I am not willing to proceed under such circumstances."

The Mouth of the Potomac Blog of the NY Daily News got the scoop in the end. It turns out that the $175,000 came from one donor, Paul E Singer, who is a founding partner of a $7 billion hedge fund - Elliot Associates. And it just so happens that he is also a top fundraiser for none other than Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

The San Francisco Chronicle added

"The revelation about Singer was met with outrage by Democratic operatives who had fought the ballot measure and called it a "dirty trick" by Republicans aimed at changing the outcome of the 2008 election.

They said Singer's admission confirmed what they believed all along - that the GOP presidential candidate's backers believed he might have benefited from the effort.

"This puts this money-laundering operation right inside the Giuliani campaign ... with Rudy's top donor and his closest confidants," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist and spokesman for Californians for Fair Election Reform, which fought
the GOP-backed ballot measure. "Federal election law is clear. If you're a presidential candidate, you or your agents can't direct money to a campaign that impacts the presidential campaign ... and there's no better way to rig the campaign than to impact the electoral college system."

It seems the $175,000 is the sole contribution received by the California group. It takes something like $2 million to pay for signature gathering to get on the California ballot. In Washington state it takes about $500,000. Any effort to resurrect the California effort would need a big infusion of money to make it by the end of the year.

Verizon Reverses Itself, Allows Text Messages by NARAL Pro-Choice America

NARAL Pro-Choice America issued a press release this afternoon announcing that Verizon has reversed it's decision of Sept 25, 2007 prohibiting it from using its text messaging services. The other major carriers never saw a problem. Verizon got a black eye for its censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America, claiming abortion was too controversial.

From NARAL Pro-Choice America's press release:

"Let's hope Verizon has learned a lesson today: citizen participation in democracy is neither 'unsavory' nor 'controversial,'" NARAL Pro-Choice America's 's President Nancy Keenan said. "As soon as the story first came out last night, we were deluged with calls from Americans outraged over Verizon's corporate censorship. We thank all of our members, bloggers, and other concerned citizens who joined us in putting pressure on Verizon to reverse this decision. We should take great solace in this initial victory, but we must remain vigilant in preventing corporations, business interests, and other third parties from blocking Americans' ability to participate in the democratic process."

See our earlier post "Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?" for more background.

Why are Senators Murray and Cantwell Not Co-Sponsors of S 223?

Senate Bill 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, is a simple bill only several sentences long. It would increase accountability of campaign disclosure to the public by requiring that candidates for the US Senate timely file their campaign finance reports electronically the same as candidates for the US House and candidates for President currently do.

Some 40 Senate members are sponsors of this bill, including Senators Hilary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Barack Obama, John F Kerry, Ron Wyden, Barbara Boxer, Joseph R Bidden, Jr, Dianne Feinstein, and Christopher Dodd to name a few. Conspicuously absent are Washington State Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

This week a third attempt to move the bill was stopped by Republican Senator John Ensign who filed an unrelated amendment that had not been discussed with a hearing. The amendment originated from the office of Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. It was to require outside organizations filing ethic complaints to disclose their donors. Previously McConnell was involved in holding up the bill and would not disclose who had put a hold on the bill. It seems he had. The amendment needs a separate hearing and is an attempt to stop S 223 from being passed.

Currently in this electronic age, the Senate remains back in the pre-computer and Internet days, filing the campaign paperwork by paper, which then has to be added back to the computer network for filing with the FEC or Federal Elections Commission. The result is a significant time lag in the availability of the public to see the disclosure reports.

As the Campaign Finance Institute reports "All S.223 would do is require Senate candidates and party committees to take information they already are required to collect and disclose, and which they already keep for their own files in electronic format, and send it on to the Secretary of the Senate as an electronic file. Instead, Senate committee now print the same information out on paper and the Federal Election Commission has to keypunch it all over again, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of wasted time."

Washington state candidates have filed forms electronically for a number of years.

One major reform missing however in the Federal legislation is that currently campaigns reports are only filed every 3 months. Washington State for years has had monthly reporting of campaign finance reports. The public deserves better accountability and more timely disclosure than every 3 months. The Federal reporting should also be monthly.

You can contact Senator Patty Murray and Senator Maria Cantwell by clicking on their names. Send them an e-mail urging that they join S 223 as co-sponsors and help to get this needed disclosure measure passed. Urge they support monthly reporting also.

Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?

The headline on an article in the New Times today reads, "Verizon Rejects Text Messaging From an Abortion Rights Group." Verizon has teamed up with the political philosophy of the Chinese Government in saying it has the right to block "controversial or unsavory text messages".

Verizon has rejected a request by Naral Pro-Choice America to allow its customers to sign up to receive text messages. The New Times notes that the other major wireless carriers have allowed their customers to sign up to receive text messages.

Verizon, by refusing the request to set up the text messaging program, prevents all messaging by Naral - including those that for example ask someone to contact their US Senator to oppose pharmacists refusing to provide US approved birth control or opposing Bush's global gag rule against birth control for the world's poorest women.

What wasn't clear from the article was how Verizon arrived at its decision that the Naral text messages were controversial. Does Verizon, or would it, also ban text messages from any Pro Life group then as a result of this decision? It was a blanket denial for Naral.

By its action Verizon is saying it has the right to censor any group it deems controversial. I wonder if Verizon had existed in the South in 1860 if they would have banned texting by any group opposing Slavery as this was surely controversial.

Or would they if they had existed in 1890 have opposed any groups advocating for the Right of Women to Vote as this was surely controversial then.

Entering the world of corporate censorship is pretty scary to say the least. It puts Verizon in the category of the form of censorship that China does, prohibiting the free exchange of ideas. Some of this censorship is self imposed by business like Goggle so they can do business in China. For example Goggle Blogoscoped found about 9% of a list of 10,000 commonly used words were self censored by Goggle from the Chinese, including words like democracy, democrat, democratic, political, politics, rights and repression.

Is the issue of gun control controversial in Verizon's eyes? Would Verizon accept text messages from the National Rifle Association and ban those from Cease Fire? Or would it ban all messages from groups advocating or opposing any gun use issue.

What about a group sending out messages about the Iraq War? Will it accept messages from some political groups and not others or ban all messages by groups with a position on this controversial issue? What about the recent controversy over MoveOn.org and General Petraeus? Would it now ban text messaging from MoveOn.org but allow those of a group calling itself Swiftboat Veterans for Petraeus? I made up the swiftboat name and am not aware of such a group but how does Verizon as a private company intend to make decisions as to which organizations to censor and which issues are controversial?

The original question of Verizon banning Naral text messaging actually has a swiftboating analogy. The company, Creative Response Concepts , that produced the swiftboat ads against Kerry is actually involved in the abortion /"Pro Life" issue, as AlterNet reports in a post entitled "Swiftboaters Recruited to Push Abstinence"

Creative Design Concepts has been hired involved by the National Abstinence Education Association to run a public relations campaign supporting abstinence only education policies. Does Verizon's rejection of Naral's controversial text messages also mean that the National Abstinence Education Association and Creative Response Concepts are also prohibited from using Verizon's text messaging program or would Verizon allow them to do so if they wanted to.

Verizon has created a huge public relations blunder and in fact has now contributed greatly to the rationale for net neutrality. As the NY Times notes

"The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.
“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.”
In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”

OK I am a Verizon user and so is my family. I am going to take Verizon at their word saying that they not accept message programs from groups that may be seen as "controversial or unsavory to any of our users" I am sure I am not alone in saying that I as a user find the Republican Party's agenda for America offensive and I find the Iraq War offensive. So please , Verizon, do not allow any group that supports the Republican Party or the Iraq War to set up a text messaging program. I do not consider the Democratic Party controversial so please allow any Democratic organization to text. Thanks for listening and responding.

Addendum: For the record, according to AlterNet, the Swift Boat Ad Group, "Creative Response Concepts' other clients have included the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Discovery Institute (a Seattle-based think tank that promotes "intelligent design" creationism), Regnery Publishing (a conservative publisher with David Limbaugh, David Horowitz, and Oliver North among their authors' list), the Coalition for Patient Choice (a group advocating against managed care reforms, and which includes the conservative Eagle Forum as a member), the Media Research Center (a conservative media watchdog organization which recently honored Rush Limbaugh with the "Buckley Award for Media Excellence"), and a group called USA Next (which was formed as an alternative to the "liberal activism" of the AARP)."

Update - As reported on ClickZ this afternoon Verizon has reversed itself and now will allow text messages from Naral Pro Choice America. Naral issued a press release noting that over 20,000 messsages protesting Verizon's action were sent to Verizon in just 2 hours..

The Washington Policy Center's Nonpartisan Joke

So how many Republicans can you invite to your Annual Dinner to speak and still call yourself nonpartisan? If you're the free market right wing Washington Policy Center, its as many as you want. Because the joke is on anyone who believes the Washington Policy Center is really nonpartisan.

This year's guest speaker is Jeb Bush - a REPUBLICAN, the President's brother and a former Governor of Florida. He will be in Seattle tomorrow for the WPC's Annual Dinner.

In 2006 it was conservative columnist George Will and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee - a REPUBLICAN now running for President.

In 2005 it was turncoat former Democratic Georgia Senator Zell Miller - who backed REPUBLICAN George Bush for President and who spoke at the REPUBLICAN National Convention
and former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn - a REPUBLICAN

Before that the Washington Policy Center says that Past Dinner honorees included:

Colorado Governor Bill Owens - A REPUBLICAN
former NY City Mayor Rudy Giuliani,- a REPUBLICAN now running for President
Karen Hughes - President Bush's former speechwriter - a REPUBLICAN
Steve Forbes - twice a REPUBLICAN candidate for President
former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating - a REPUBLICAN

If you believe Zell Miller breaks the Republican label mold, then the joke's on you.

Is EPA Deep Sixing Their Toxic Microwave Popcorn Study?

A week ago I got a phone call from the EPA in Washington, DC. It was someone from their Office of Public Affairs responding to my Sept 5, 2007 e-mail to the Environmental Protection Agency, asking them about their study on the release of diacetyl from microwave popcorn. The study was completed last year and shown to the popcorn companies but never released to the public.

I was told by Doretta Reayes in the Office of Public Affairs on that Monday that I would receive a call from Melissa in their Research and Development Division that afternoon about the study. I never received a call from her. Instead I received another call from Doretta saying that she "did more research" and that the study had "not been published" and there was no one to talk to and that "no one can answer questions".

When I asked when it was going to be published she didn't know. She said there was "no date for release." When I asked why it was not released yet she didn't know. She suggested I contact the FDA if I was concerned about it as a food issue - the classic pass it on to someone else. When I asked if the EPA study results had been passed on to any other Federal Agency like the FDA or anyone else, she didn't know.

Unfortunately other Federal Agencies are not responding to diacetyl very fast. The FDA has said they will look at it now based on the recently reported case of bronchiolitis obliterans reported in August. But did the EPA provide the FDA with the results of their study on the release of diacetyl from microwave popcorn? I couldn't get an answer from the EPA. If the EPA didn't, why didn't they?

Other Federal Agencies are also not responding. They seem to be avoiding the issue just like the Occupational Health and Safety people have been avoiding setting workplace regulations for workers in popcorn plants who are exposed to toxic diacetyl vapors. Popcorn workers problems have been investigated since 2001 but there are still no workplace guidelines or standards.

Doretta said she could see I was concerned and that she would get back to me on Friday. I still have not heard from her.

Since the initial press reports at the end of August on the dangers of diacetyl exposure from microwave popcorn most of the major popcorn companies have announced that they are removing diacetyl from their popcorn. They have seen the study, while the public did not.

Is the EPA delaying timely release of information that could affect people's health to give the popcorn companies time to phase out diacetyl in microwave popcorn? If so the EPA could be subject to lawsuits from people just now being diagnosed with health effects caused by consumption of microwave popcorn. Just who benefits by delay in the release of this information - certainly not the public.

It seems to me that maybe someone in Congress needs to request a copy of the study and investigate whether the EPA is deliberately withholding the timely release of results to the public. They need to determine whether or not the EPA has withheld vital public health information to protect corporate popcorn interests. They need to ask what EPA did with the results once they had them and whether they forwarded them to other agencies, like the FDA and Occupational Heath and Safety Administration, concerned with health and food safety and worker safety.

46th District Democrats Add New Endorsements

The 46th Legislative District Democrats in North Seattle met last night and made more endorsements for the November 6, 2007 election. See the previous list of endorsements here. A 2/3 vote is required to be endorsed.

Seattle School Board District 1 - Peter Maier

Seattle School Board District 6 - Maria Ramirez and Steve Sundquist (dual endorsement)

King County Initiative 25 (elected director of elections) - NO

King County Proposition 1 - Medic One - Emergency Medical Services - APPROVE

Sound Transit and RTID (Regional Transportation Investment District) - Prop. 1 -no position

Initiative 960 - NO

Referendum Measure 67 - APPROVE

Engrossed Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 8206 - no position

Senate Joint Resolution 8212 - no position

Engrossed House Joint Resolution 4204 -Simple Majority for School Bonds - APPROVE

Substitute House Joint Resolution 4215 - no position

The no on Eyman's Initiative 960 to give a 1/3 minority in the Legislature veto power over any tax increases was unanimous as was the yes (approve) vote for Engrossed House Joint Resolution 4204 to amend the Constitution to allow school levies to pass by a simple majority.

I am a PCO in the 46th L.D. The Sound Transit and RTID Proposition received a 53 to 33 vote after hearing pro arguments from Transportation Choices Coalition and con from the Sierra Club. The other 3 "no position" votes on issues were the result of people feeling they did not sufficiently understand the issues involved. I wondered how if we political animals could not make a decision how we expected voters to do any better.

As a result I moved that the organization in the future anticipate this by having a committee set up to review and make recommendations for the endorsement meeting. I felt somebody needed to understand the issues and be able to answer questions. The 46th LD Democrats voted and approved the motion. Afterwards it was suggested that this be handled by the existing Legislative Action Committee which seems logical.

The District also voted to make several contributions to campaigns. Originally when the budget was being approved earlier in the year no contributions were in it. Several of us objected and contributions were added.

Bill Sherman - Prosecuting Attorney $500

Gael Tarleton - Port of Seattle #2 $100

Alec Fisken - Port of Seattle #5 $500

No on I-960 $100

Yes on 4204 $500

This was the last meeting to be chaired by Scott White who is stepping down as Chair to run for the Washington State Legislature next year. Scott is running for the seat being vacated by Representative Jim McIntire who is running next year for State Treasurer.

Governor Gregoire Stops Tilting at Windmills

Governor Gregoire has chosen to do the right thing although not everyone agreed. She has given the go-ahead to the Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project to build up to 65 wind turbines on ridges overlooking Route 97 northwest of Ellensburg in eastern Washington.

Back in July Governor Gregoire had asked the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to re-evaluate the project based on concerns of local rural residents opposed to the Project. At the time we felt Governor Gregoire was tilting at windmills and needed to show leadership.

With an emphasis to build them as far away as possible from residences, the go ahead was significant in that it overrode local opposition to the project by the Kittitas Couty Board of Commissioners.

The Seattle Times quotes US Congressman Doc Hastings, a supporter of nuclear power from the TriCities area as saying, "I fear this precedent will embolden energy companies to bypass local leaders and go to the Governor to have projects imposed on communities."

Funny thing, I seem to remember that this was exactly what the nuclear power industry tried to do in Washington State back in the 1970's and 1980's when they were promoting the WPPSS nuclear power plants at Satsop. I doubt you'll find any similiar quotes from Hastings back then supporting local opposition to those projects.

Washington voters, by passing Initiative 394 back in 1981, said that they didn't want to be indebted for bonds for large public energy projects without having a vote first. Washington voters last year actually voted to promote more renewable energy use in Washington State with the passage of Initiative 937.

The Kittitas Valley Wind Project represents a significant step in meeting the goals of Initiative 937 to achieve 15% of our energy from new renewable energy resources like wind by 2020. Governor Gregoire has made the right decision by listening to the voters and acting in the public interest.

Rumors Suggest Michael B Mukasey as Next Attorney General

Several sources are confirming that former Federal Judge Michael B Mukasey is now Bush's top choice to replace Gonzales. They suggest Bush may nominate him as early as tomorrow (Monday). The sources include William Kristol at the daily Standard.

Mukasey was included on our previous list of candidates being actively considered when we wrote Who's Up Next to be Bush's Attorney General?

Mukasey retired in September 2006 after almost two decades as a Federal Judge. He went back to his previous law firm, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. His listed areas of practice at the firm include litigation, white collar defense and investigations, media and entertainment and subprime mortgage.

The firm's website states that:

"During his 18 years of service – including six as Chief Judge – Judge Mukasey presided over thousands of cases, including such high profile trials as that of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 co-defendants, who were charged with plotting to destroy a number of New York City landmarks. He also presided over major cases involving the dispute between Larry Silverstein and his insurers concerning insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center site and the Motion Picture Association of America’s ban on the distribution of new movies to critics and award panels, among many other notable cases."

Mukasey's vital statistics

"BORN 1941 in the Bronx

FEDERAL JUDICIAL SERVICE Judge, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York 1987-2006, serving as chief judge from 2000 ntil retirement

EDUCATION Columbia University, A.B., 1963; Yale Law School,
LL.B., 1967

PROFESSIONAL CAREER Private practice, New York City, 1967-1972
Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York, 1972-1976 Chief,
Official Corruption Unit, 1975-1976 Private practice, New York City, 1976-1987
RESIDENCES Manhattan and East Hampton"

One interesting post giving insight into Mukasey is that done by Glenn Greenwald today and posted at salon.com entitled "Michael Mukasey's role in the Jose Padilla case" Greenwald notes that Mukasey was willing to defy Bush and rule based on the law and not on terrorist fears and assertions by Bush without legal basis in the Padilla case.

"Judge Mukasey repeatedly defied the demands of the Bush administration, ruled against them, excoriated them on multiple occasions for failing to comply with his legally issued orders, and ruled that Padilla was entitled to contest the factual claims of the government and to have access to lawyers. He issued these rulings in 2002 and 2003, when virtually nobody was defying the Bush administration on anything, let alone on assertions of executive power to combat the Terrorists. And he made these rulings in the face of what was became the standard Bush claim that unless there was complete acquiescence to all claimed powers by the President, a Terrorist attack would occur and the blood would be on the hands of those who impeded the President. "

Greenwald reminds us however that:

"There is no question that Judge Mukasey, a Reagan appointee who served as the Chief Judge for the Southern District of New York before retiring recently, is close to the far right on the judicial spectrum. He undoubtedly holds many legal and political views which most Democrats would find objectionable, perhaps even intolerable. But that will be true of any nominee Bush selects, and it is true of the current Acting Attorney General, Paul Clement, who will remain in place if no nominee is confirmed."

BIAW and Rossi Conducting Stealth Campaign for Governor

Public Disclosure be Damned! So say Dino Rossi and the BIAW in their early starting rematch with Governor Christine Gregoire. Both are conducting efforts to get Rossi elected and both are not reporting to the PDC their real campaign efforts .

As Andrew over at the NW Progressive Blog writes in his post Walking for Washington, the BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington) is the main funder behind the Walking for Washington PAC which it turns out is once again a "Walking for Rossi" PAC. They have been going door to door canvassing for a number of months now asking voters survey questions starting out with a "Would you vote for Rossi or Gregoire for Governor?"' first question.

The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission reports that Walking for Washington has raised some $125,618 total. The BIAW gave $90,000 in cash and $15,193 in kind. The remainder was transferred from another BIAW PAC, It's Time for a Change, which has the same BIAW address and treasurer, as the Walking for Washington PAC.

Where the BIAW and it's Walking for Washington PAC skirt state law and are a stealth campaign, is that they never report for what candidate they are spending money doing the survey and voter id work for. They are trying to slide this work under the radar so to speak. They have never filed paperwork with the PDC declaring what candidate or candidates they are spending money supporting or opposing. They merely report expenditures for individual contractors with no mention of the race or candidate they are involved with.

In fact they repeatedly check off as no the statement "During the Reporting Period, did the committee make an independent expenditure (ie an expense not considered a contribution) supporting or opposing a state or local candidate?"

OK please explain to me how a committee which previously supported Rossi and that is asking voters about issues to micro target them and that asks them if they would vote for Rossi or Gregoire for Governor is not making an expenditure supporting Rossi and opposing Gregoire?

It is obvious that they are opposing Gregoire and supporting Rossi from both the questions asked about the Governor's race and the fact that this is the identical work of micro targeting based on a list of issues the voters support or oppose, just as they did for Rossi in his 2004 Gubernatorial campaign.

Meanwhile Rossi himself is running as a candidate without filing with the PDC as a candidate. He is doing this through his traveling and speaking for his foundation Forward Washington. David Goldstein writes about this in a post entitled "Forward Washington, Rewind Rossi"

We first wrote about this this in a post last December entitled "Rossi Starts Run for Governor"

So what's wrong with these guys? Why can't they be straightforward with Washington voters and admit what they are up to? Why are they bending over backward to skirt state law rather than be honest with the voters as to what they are up to.

Voters should interpret this behavior for what it is - dishonesty. It is a ridiculous attempt to hide campaign activities. Who do they think they are fooling? Voters should read Rossi's actions as indicative of the type of Governor he would be.

It portrays Rossi as a politician that you can't trust to tell the truth or that doesn't care to treat voters with respect. It's one of "I don't give a damn about public disclosure and the voters knowing what I am really doing." Let it be a warning - a flashing light or a buzzer that gives you pause and makes you wonder just how open and honest Rossi would be as Governor.

Who's Raising the Money In King County for the November Election?

Here's the end of August fundraisng breakdown for some of the candidates going on to the November election in King County. The figures are from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission.

King County Prosecutor

William R Sherman (D) raised $92,482 spent $66,354 cash on hand $27,128

Daniel T Satterberg (R) raised $168,790 spent $75,015 cash on hand $93,775

Seattle City Council Position 1

Jeanne Godden raised $191,288 spent $140,934

Joe Szwaja raised $47,794 spent $45,803

Seattle City Council Position 3

Bruce A Harrell raised $167,503 spent $125,902

Venus Valezquez raised $131,070 spent $104,258

Seattle City Council Position 5

Thomas M Rasmussen raised $196,915 spent $74269

Seattle City Council Position 7

Timothy L Burgess raised $186,023 spent $114,032

David J Della raised $186,693 spent $129,052

Seattle City Council 9

Sally J Clark raised $148,541 spent $68,082

Judith L Fenton raised $3,887 spent $987

Port of Seattle Position 2

Bob Edwards raised $97,366 spent $96,593

Gael Tarleton raised $146,659 spent $118,277

Port of Seattle Position 5

Bill Bryant raised $198,631 spent $118,179

Alec Fisken raised $101,263 spent $62,450

Bush Blowing Up God's Mountains for Black Gold

The Bush Republican Administration, beholden to corporate interests over the public interest, has issued draft revisions to surface mining law to increase blowing up mountain tops to strip mine more coal. The draft rules authorize disposal of mine waste in valleys and streams, polluting water downstream, including underground aquifers, with toxic chemicals.

The Bill Moyers Journal last Friday did a special on this issue, covering the action by Evangelical Christians in West Virginia who have organized under the banner of Christians for the Mountains. They are fighting to protect their families, children and communities from rampant air and water pollution, including their drinking water.

Moyers quotes one member of Christians for the Mountains, Judy Bonds:"

There are three million pounds of explosives used a day just in West Virginia to blow the tops off these mountains. Three million pounds a day...To knock fly rock everywhere, to send silica and coal dust and rock dust and fly rock in our homes. I wonder which one of these mountains do you think God will come down here and blow up? Which one of these hollers do you think Jesus would store waste in? That's a simple question. That's all you have to ask."

As John M Broder for the New York Times writes:

"Mountaintop mining is the most common strip mining in central Appalachia, and the most destructive. Ridge tops are flattened with bulldozers and dynamite, clearing all vegetation and, at times, forcing residents to move.
The coal seams are scraped with gigantic machines called draglines. The law requires mining companies to reclaim and replant the land, but the process always produces excess debris. Roughly half the coal in West Virginia is from mountaintop mining ..."

The industry political connection, Broder says came about as follows:

"The Clinton administration began moving in 1998 to tighten enforcement of the stream rule, but the clock ran out before it could enact new regulations. The Bush administration has been much friendlier to mining interests, which have been reliable contributors to the Republican Party, and has worked on the new rule change since 2001.

The early stages of the revision process were supported by J. Stephen Griles, a former industry lobbyist who was the deputy interior secretary from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Griles had been deputy director of the Office of Surface Mining in the Reagan administration and is knowledgeable about the issues and generally supports the industry.

In June, Mr. Griles was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years’ probation for lying to a Senate committee about his ties to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist at the heart of a corruption scandal who is now in prison."

Broder notes that the stream rule referred to is a critical issue:

The rule, which would apply to waste from both types of mines, is known as the stream buffer zone rule. First adopted in 1983, it forbids virtually all mining within 100 feet of a river or stream. ...

The Army Corps of Engineers, state mining authorities and local courts have read the rule liberally, allowing extensive mountaintop mining and dumping of debris in coal-rich regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. From 1985 to 2001, 724 miles of streams were buried under mining waste, according to the environmental impact statement accompanying the new rule. If current practices continue, another 724 river miles will be buried by 2018, the report says.

You can get a lot more information on this issue by going to the webpage set up by the Bill Moyers Journal. Go to references and reading.

You can read and give your comments on the proposed rule and draft Environmnetal Impact Statement by going to the website for the US Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department. There is a 60 day comment period.

The glaring loopholes in this rule are obvious. Their August 24, 2007 press release says:

"All mining activities must still avoid increases in sedimentation and protect fish and wildlife and related environmental values "to the extent possible" using the "best technology currently available." and "use the most environmentally protective alternative or explain why that alternative is not possible"

These rules really set no real conditions at all with such vague language. It's totally up to those approving the permits. If you have mining industry people running the program as Bush currently does, then getting a permit really means little or nothing.

Senator Hagel to Retire, Will Former Senator Bob Kerrey Run?

A strong increase in the number of Democrats in the US Senate after next year's elections keeps looking better and better. Washington's two Democratic Senators - Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell -would find their job a lot easier with a larger Democratic majority in the Senate.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, according to the Washington Post's political blog The Fix and other sources, is going to announce on Monday that he is not going to run for re-election.

Democrats will lose a strong critic of Bush's Iraq fiasco but have increased odds of adding to the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Democrats are heavily recruiting former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey to run for the seat. Kerry is now head of the New School in New York and is reported as of Friday as being undecided.

While Democrats currently only control the Senate now by one vote, their odds of picking up seats are great. To start with, Republicans have to defend 22 of the current 34 seats up next year.

Already two other Republicans have announced they are stepping down - Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado and Senator John Warner of Virginia. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho , despite second thoughts, is expected to resign.

Democrats are expected to mount strong campaigns against Republicans in Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire and Minnesota. And Republican Senator Ted Stevens is facing federal corruption charges in Alaska.

Why are Democrats Supporting "The Heritage Foundation of the Northwest"?

Would you believe that some Democrats are lending their names to support a right wing free market think tank in Washington State? Was this a conscious decision or are they being co-opted by the right wing free market think tank? Several of the names are surprising - namely Democratic State Representative Maralyn Chase and Senator Jeanne Kohl-Wells. Lt Governor Brad Owen is not so surprising. But State Auditor Brian Sonntag's name also pops up.

What group are we talking about? It's the Washington Policy Center - an organization whose webpage quotes Jack Kemp calling them "The Heritage Foundation of the Northwest."

The Washington Policy Center is a right wing free market think tank that is skillfully manipulating public opinion through their numerous activities, including repackaging the official state legislative website into a marketing and policy tool called WashingtonVotes.org to increase their exposure to the media and public. The Washington Policy Center is part of a national network of free market think tanks called the State Policy Network.

They say they are "nonpartisan", citing the testimonials of these Democrats to balance out people like conservative columnist and author George Will and conservative Republican Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Democratic turned Republican Senator Zell Miller of Georgia who savaged the Democrats at the Republican National Convention.


A closer look however reveals an agenda that basically reads like the platform of the Republican Party. That's not surprising when you look at their Board of Directors. It includes a number of prominent Republicans, including former State Representatives Emilio Cantu and William Polk, former state Senator Stephen L Johnson, former US Rep. George Nethercutt, former Ambassador Della Newman and Kemper Freeman, Jr. as well as Jeanette Hayner and Jon Sonneland on their Eastern Washington Advisory Board. No Democratic names pop up that I recognize, if there are any.

I frankly do not consider them non-partisan because their agenda is basically the same as that of the Republican Party. It's hard to find anything they are doing that is in the platform of the Democratic Party.

Their "objectivity"is that of free market ideologues. Saying they are "non-partisan" is like Bush saying he is the President of all the people of the United States. That doesn't change his or their anti-regulation free market support of the corporations’ mindset and corporate profit at the expense of the average citizen..

This free market corporate perspective of course is further evident through the numerous corporate and business affiliations of the majority of their Board of Directors. These include such names as Kemper Development, Washington Trust Bank, Westen Peterbilt, Inc., Columbia Ventures Corp., Fluke Capital Management, Simpson Investment Co., Connor Development, Silver Cloud Inns and Hotels and the Weiss Company.

Some of their recent Action Agenda has been very indicative of their right wing bias.

They recommended repeal of Washington State's inheritance tax which Washington voters rejected last year.
They supported land use policies like Oregon's measure 37 to compensate property owners for zoning changes. Voters also rejected that proposal.
They opposed banning PBDE's - toxic flame retardants urging that Washington state not adopt a "precautionary" approach to environmental hazards. The Washington State Legislature just passed a ban on PBDE's.
They opposed stricter air emissions standards for cars. The Legislature passed a measure to follow California's lead to reduce air pollution.
They questioned the validity of recent global warming impacts reported in Washington State.

Their WashingtonVotes website is a ripoff of the official Washington State Legislative website at http://www.leg.wa.gov/. They are basically repackaging information that is produced and paid for by the taxpayers and are using it to enhance their image as providing a service to Washington State Voters. At the same time it allows them to do things like select top bills of the week and highlight certain bills in list placement in a very subtle way meant to influence people's perceptions of what is before the Legislature. The state's official website at http://www.leg.wa.gov/ is their source of information.

I have written several posts about the WashingtonVotes.org website.
"WashingtonVotes.org Lacks Privacy Policy"
"Data Mining and Privacy Concerns at WashingtonVotes.org "

When I originally posted my concern about http://www.washingtonvotes.org/ lack of a true privacy policy, their website said ""By posting comments, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication on, with, or through the Washington Votes web site, you are granting USA Votes, Inc. a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide license to:
Use, copy, sublicense, adapt, transmit, publicly perform or display any such communication.
Sublicense or transfer to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication.

The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such communication, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark,"

After I brought attention to this carte blanche "we can use any information you input" privacy policy, they completely eliminated this wording and now claim they don't "release, sell or otherwise distribute" the names and addresses of people using the website. They have added extensive clarification to counter their previous non privacy policy.

I am glad to see that they have "clarified" their privacy policy and have dropped their previous claims to rights for anything said or done through their website.

Take it for what it is and what they say at your own risk. The Washington Policy Center's "impartial information" questions global warming, opposes environmental regulations and worker's rights and opposes taxes.

They currently have a so called analysis of Eyman's Initiative 960 measure on their website, as well as the WashingtonVotes.org website, that reads like an Eyman press release. I-960 is a sneak approach to giving the minority control over tax and fees measures before the Washington State Legislature by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass these measures.

I-960 is unconstitutional in that it tries to void the Constitutional mandate that the Legislature vote by majority rules. Instead it would give 1/3 of the Legislature veto power over any tax and fee bills. The Republicans and right wing conservatives currently are a minority in the Legislature.

I-960 would overrule the vote of a majority of Legislators and give the minority control over taxes and revenue to fund the state budget. The minority is trying to grab power they lost when they couldn't get the public to elect them at the ballot box. So they are trying to change the rules with I-960 so they can control the outcome.

The Washington Policy Center also have a series of papers that oppose Sound Transit and using tax dollars for public transportation. This might have something to do with Kemper Freeman, Jr being on their Board. Objective studies - I don't think so.

Please contact these Democrats and ask that have their names removed from supporting the Washington Policy Center. They are not nonpartisan in their Board makeup and are not unbiased but have a free market right wing agenda that is contrary to most legislation the Democratic Party supports.

Rep. Maralyn Chase

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Lt Gov. Brad Owen - ltgov@leg.wa.gov

State Auditor Brian Sonntag - sonntagb@sao.wa.gov

Got Microwave Popcorn? Got Bronchiolitis Obliterans? Got Milk?

Workers at popcorn plants exposed to diacetyl have developed a rare lung disease known as bronchiolitis obliterans. This has been investigated since 2001 yet the Occupational Health and Safety Administration has not acted to protect workers health by coming up with workplace exposure regulations.

Now this week two cases have emerged of people developing "popcorn workers lung" as it is sometimes called. It can result in the need to have a lung transplant or death. One case was reported by a pulmonary specialist at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver of a 10 year twice a day microwave popcorn eater. The other potential case was of a son of a popcorn worker who received a huge amount of microwave popcorn from his job.

After years of inaction, including secretly seeing the results of an EPA microwave popcorn study last year, the popcorn industry is stampeding to the exits. Last week Weaver Popcorn Company of Indianapolis, Indiana announced that it was removing diacetyl, the suspected toxic ingredient, from microwave popcorn. Yesterday three more companies claim they will be jumping ship. ConAgra Foods Inc, General Mills, and American Popcorn Company said they would be removing diacetyl from their popcorn.

Last week I posted on this issue - "The Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Scandal" I noticed soon afterwards that my site , MajorityRulesBlog, had been visited by someone from ConAgra . If you Google on microwave popcorn and diacetyl you will see there is a lot of web activity on this issue.

Diacetyl is not just in popcorn but actually occurs in some food naturally, like milk and wine. The Dairy Industry is concerned of course but their website actually raised more questions.

The IDFA or International Daisry Foods Association notes that

"...diacetyl occurs naturally in some dairy products, and consumers may not realize that eating products with diacetyl poses no health risks. The health risk is associated with inhaling diacetyl that has been heated to temperatures over 100 degrees.

"Because of the nature of our products, dairy foods that contain diacetyl do not present a consumer or worker safety concern," said Clay Detlefsen, IDFA vice president. "At colder temperatures, diacetyl attaches to the water molecules in dairy foods and never volatilizes or reaches the air."

When used as artificial butter flavoring, diacetyl may be hazardous when heated and inhaled over a long period — such as in the production of microwave popcorn and some other heated food products. Some workers in factories that make the artificial flavoring have been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterns, also known as "popcorn workers lung," which causes serious respiratory problems...

Diacetyl also occurs naturally in wine, particularly chardonnay, and is used as an additive in many baked goods, candies and snack foods as well as in some dairy products."

Several additional questions arise. What other foods, besides popcorn, contain diacetyl and in what amounts? And what is the workplace exposure levels to diacetyl of workers that are preparing foods heated over 100 degrees - like baked goods? And what consumer danger is there from heating foods that contain diacetyl over 100 degrees like in a microwave or oven?

A just released study entitled "Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome in Chemical Workers Producing Diacetyl for Food Flavorings" was published in the Sept 1, 2007 online edition of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The study concludes: "Exposure to an agent during diacetyl production appears to be responsible for causing bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in chemical process operators, consistent with the suspected role of diacetyl in downstream food production."

Enough scientific evidence is accumulating that there is reason to be concerned about diacetyl in all food products, not just popcorn, that are microwaved or heated to high enough temperatures to vaporize diacetyl. And worker safety levels need to be put in place in chemical plants producing the buttery flavoring diacetyl and well as plants adding the chemical as flavoring for food.

Since the Bush Administration seems not interested in tacking worker and consumer health and saftey issues regarding diacetyl, action needs to take place in Congress to investigate and take action. Some states like California are already looking at acting sooner rather than later.

Contact your Representatives in Congress and urge them to take action.

Questions for the EPA

I sent the following e-mail to the Seattle District Office of the EPA today. I'll let you know what they write back.

To the EPA:

I understand according to recent articles in the Seattle PI that the EPA completed a study last year on the release of diacetyl from microwave popcorn. Results were supposedly made available to the popcorn industry, yet not to the public.

Diacetyl is known to cause serious health problems to workers exposed to it. I would like to know what amounts I am being exposed to by microwaving popcorn.

Where and when or how can I receive a copy of this study or see a copy of this study?
When is this study going to be released?
Why has this study not been released yet?
What concerns does this study raise regarding the safety of microwave popcorn?
Have you alerted any other Federal Agencies, Congress or the President regarding the results of this study?

Steve Zemke
MajorityRulesBlog

I did a quick keyword search of the EPA library system and it returned nothing for the words diacetyl and microwave popcorn. Try it yourself at EPA national online library system. For comparison, typing in pcb produced 786 documents and lead 3895.

The Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Scandal - Part II

Follow Bill Clinton's example - don't inhale. Microwave popcorn releases toxic diacetyl vapors. This is the buttery aroma you smell when you open the bag. Don't inhale, because the Bush Administration is continuing to cover up the scandal and is not acting to protect your health.

The New York Times today reports that a "Doctor Links a Man's Illness to Microwave Popcorn."

"Heated diacetyl becomes a vapor and, when inhaled over a long period of time, seems to lead the small airways in the lungs to become swollen and scarred. Sufferers can breathe in deeply, but they have difficulty exhaling. The severe form of the disease is called bronchiolitis obliterans or “popcorn workers’ lung,” which can be fatal."

We wrote last week about "The Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Scandal." This is new evidence damning the inaction of the Bush Administration in addressing a serious documented workplace hazard as well as a consumer health hazard.

Bush officials in the Environmental Protection Agency have measured the release of diacetyl from microwave popcorn but have not released the study to the public. The study was completed last year. The results were meanwhile given to the popcorn industry.

With this latest evidence and inaction we are obviously now in the throes of the "Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Cover-up". The Bush team is obviously more intent on protecting corporate profits than alerting the public to the serious health risk of consumers being exposed to toxic diacetyl vapors.

This is the problem you get when you saturate the Federal bureaucracy, that is supposed to represent the public interest, with corporate and partisan politicians beholden to corporate interests as Bush has done. The Republican "Corporations First" policies of Bush is a disastrous one for our nation. Individual and worker concerns about health and safety are made subordinate to corporate profits.

As the Seattle PI wrote about last week and today, the Bush Administration is not acting on regulating and cleaning up the toxic workplace conditions that exist in industries like the popcorn industry. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health first investigated workers injured and dying in Midwest popcorn plants starting in 2001.

Despite serious life threatening workplace exposure to diacetyl, the Bush Administration, carrying out the conservative Republican Agenda to not regulate corporations, has not taken prudent action to protect worker safety and health. And now it appears that they are also ignoring the consumer health risk.

Consider these two statements quoted in today's Seattle PI article.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., chairwoman of a work force protection subcommittee:

"The reported case of a consumer diagnosed with popcorn lung underscores the need for our public health agencies to take this hazard more seriously, not only for workers, but for consumers as well. While OSHA is dragging its feet over the numerous reports of workers who have died or suffered serious lung disease from exposure to diacetyl, this new case raises concerns that consumers may be at risk as well."

As well as this comment:

Dr. David Egilman, an occupation medicine specialist, has examined and testified for many of the workers injured by diacetyl.

"People need to realize that these illness and deaths were completely preventable," Egilman said. "They occurred because the companies who make these products hid the information on toxicity and control the regulatory process. ... An emasculated government public health community that is subservient to corporate profits cannot protect us -- even from popcorn"

I urge people to contact their Congressional representatives and urge action be taken to remove diacetyl form microwave popcorn, to put workplace protection in place for workers exposed to diacetyl and to ask that other foods with diacetyl in them that are heated or microwaved be investigated for possible health dangers.

The Seattle PI mentions that diacetyl is also in "potato chips, baked goods and candies, frozen food, artificial butter, cooking oils, beer, dog food and other items"

Tell Congress to take action to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of diacetyl in heated or microwaved foods. Click here to send a message to Congress.

Republican Senators in Dire Straits in 2008 Elections

Republicans face a bleak prospect in next year's US Senate elections. Senator Larry Craig's resignation added to what was already shaping up to be a daunting task. Craig's situation just contributed a little more to an already tarnished Republican image that just got a little tougher to try to turn around. And it puts into play another state, that while Republican leaning, has elected strong Democrats in the past like Cecil Andrus and Frank Church.

The Republican's problem starts with the reality that they have to defend 22 seats in 2008 while the Democrats are only defending 12 seats. And with the Iraq War and Bush's ineptitude in running the government at a low ebb, they need to win 23 of the 34 seats up in the Senate to regain control.

Republicans are running in 4 states that went for Kerry over Bush in 2004 - Oregon, Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire

Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia who is 80 decided this last week to not run for re-election. This brings the state of Virginia into play for the Democrats, where ex-Governor Mark Warner, a Democrat who left office with an 80% approval rating, is considering running for the seat.

In Colorado another open seat exists with Republican Senator Wayne Allard retiring. As the Rocky Mountain News reported, the Republicans actually set his retirement up with the " promise he made in 1996 to serve no more than two U.S. Senate terms.
The term limits pledge was a relic of the so-called "Republican Revolution" of the 1994 election, when the GOP swept to power promising to change the ways of Washington."

In a close election in 2002 Allard renewed his pledge. "I’m term-limited," Allard said in reaction. "That has always been my position. I’ve always said I believe in limiting my term. I’ve stipulated in past campaigns that I believe in term limits, and I’ve never wavered on it."

As the Washington Post reported

Beyond Idaho and Virginia, the field looks barren for Republicans, GOP campaign aides conceded. NRSC fundraising has been weak, and Republicans appear to have only two real Democratic targets next year, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Johnson's slow recovery from a brain hemorrhage has impeded Republicans from going on the attack.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report on Wednesday rated the Colorado seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard as a tossup, but the state has been trending Democratic. Anti-war sentiments are turning some voters away from the GOP, imperiling the re-election prospects of Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, John Sununu, R-N.H., Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

The Craig scandal is only the latest issue to demoralize the Republican Party, and new wild cards keep springing up, such as an FBI raid on a vacation home of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and questions about the role that Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in Albuquerque. Democratic surrogates in labor-backed groups have even been attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The Cook Report considers those three seats and the Idaho seat "likely Republican," but if the GOP is forced to spend money defending them, it would siphon funds from races where the money would be badly needed. As of June 30, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had $20.4 million on hand, while the National Republican Senatorial Committee had $5.8 million in its bank account."

Another state that could come into play for democrats is Nebraska. Republican Chuck Hagel has been rumored to be considering retiring. If he does, former Democratic Senator and Governor Bob Kerrey is thought to be very interested in running.

Lots can change in 14 months but it's all going in the wrong direction for the Republicans right now. It's probably there bad karma coming back to get them. It was laughable to listen to listen to Senator John Ensign on the George Stephanopoulos show on Sunday. He is heading up the Republican Senators' election effort.

Ensign said the public wants to elect Senators that "put country before party". Well there's one strike against the Republicans. Then he said it was "time to end partisan bickering" That's two strikes. The third strike was when he said "we need health care we can afford." That's not the Republicans. They were the guys that didn't do it when they controlled both houses and the Presidency. People aren't dumb. The Republicans are the ones who gave a bonanza to the drug companies at the expense of the public with their corporate welfare drug package that was Medicare Part D. What a joke.

The Republicans are in for more tough times ahead. They are trying to spin it that the country's problems are the Democrat's fault. Congress is working under the Democrats now . But our problems are the legacy of a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress. And the American public knows that. There's nothing more disingenuous than listening to Republicans talk about partisan bickering and inaction. That's their legacy, not the Democrats.