Why does the US media lie so much?

A good opinion piece on how American media blatantly lies to its own people, & the world. However, they always thought, & still think, that there would be no adverse consequences from this lying. Well, there are consequences for every action.

The lying & false statements about Afghanistan war, Iraq war, & in general, war on terror, for instance, have made our world a lot less safe. Those wars brought hell to innocent people in those regions where those wars are taking place, & at the same time, American soldiers, their families, & the whole American economy, also suffered, & in fact, is still suffering. Imagine the world now, if that same American media would have reported the news as it should have been reported in the first place, instead of saying, “the news is what we say it is.”

War on terror is just one example out of many. The opinion piece gives an example of how chemicals injected into cows to force them to give more milk harms the Americans, themselves, who drink that milk. We can easily extend that example to meat, fruits & vegetables, & many other kinds of foods American public is eating & suffering from multiple health problems.

Media, & by extension, journalism, are supposed to be vanguard of the public, against the wrongdoers; be that wrongdoers be the governments or anyone else. But when the media falsifies & lies about what is going on in the country, then the consequences are horrifying. Now, that lying of media has brought on Trump & its supporters labelling each & everything coming out of MSM (mainstream media) as false, lies, & "fake news." It's not that Trump is not lying, either, but the public becomes completely confused as to who to believe, when both parties are saying that what they are reporting or saying is true & the other is lying.

On top of that, this opinion piece also shows the hypocrisy of Americans. We in the developing world think that the developed world got to where it is by being honest, truthful, & transparent. No. Their development has got nothing to do with these noble traits of a society & people. The developed world got to where it is now by lying, cheating, & defrauding the other party.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/337424-us-media-lie-mckinney/

Either by omission or by commission, the US media actively misinforms the public on crucial issues that matter. The reason they do this is because they legally can.

My mentor and dissertation committee member, Dr. Peter Dale Scott, recently wrote on his Facebook page: “Inadequate decently priced housing is one of America's most urgent domestic problems, with developers vacating neighborhoods to build third and fourth homes for the one percent. It is a symptom of what's wrong that Cynthia McKinney, one of the relatively few former members of Congress with a Ph.D., has to go to RT to discuss a crisis that is so under-reported in the US media.”

And therein lies the problem with US media: The news is so filtered and in some cases propagandized that it bears little resemblance to the day-to-day intellectual needs of the average US citizen. It fails to provide solutions, let alone information that allows US citizens to cast informed votes. Either by omission or by commission, the US media actively under-, ill-, or misinforms the public on crucial issues that matter! The reason they do this is because they legally can. Media in the US has at least one court ruling that allows them to knowingly lie to the public.

Let’s start with the First Amendment to the US Constitution that protects freedom of speech. Courts in the US have ruled on many occasions that freedom of speech also includes the freedom to lie. The rationale is that such rulings give space for unpopular statements of fact. For example, in 2012, the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to affirm a lower court decision to overturn a conviction for lying about one’s credentials.

The lower court judge in that case wrote, “How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an option?”

Washington State Supreme Court even ruled that lying to get votes, distinguishing between fact and opinion, was not something that the state should negotiate. It wrote that people and not the government should be the final arbiter of truth in a political debate.

Now, the First Amendment does not protect some types of lying: like, for instance, lying while under oath, lying to a government official, lying to sell a product. Even in defamation cases, the plaintiff has a firm threshold to overcome, especially if the person targeted is a “public person.” However, the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that individuals have a right to lie: what about corporations and media outlets? In 2012, the Supreme Court extended First Amendment rights to organizations and corporations in its Citizens United decision.

My local newspaper, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (AJC), ran a headline against me just days before my election that read: “McKinney Indicted.” One had to pore over the article to learn that the McKinney referred to was neither me nor my father, nor anyone related to me. But the AJC never stated that fact. It was a dirty trick carried out by the US press. And sadly, it happens all the time. I filed a lawsuit against the AJC, but had to withdraw it because of a lack of money to finance the lawsuit and, worse, the hostile environment regarding the media and anybody's efforts to make them tell the truth. I remained powerless before the media monolith and wondered why and how they could get away with such blatant and outright lies.

Then, in 2010, 'Project Censored' ran a story that caught my eye: “The Media Can Legally Lie.” After having had my series of run-ins with my local media as they always failed to report the truth about me, I was drawn to this story. Project Censored is a media watchdog based at Sonoma State University in California. Its goal is to end the junk food news diet of misinformation and disinformation fed to the US public by the corporate media. It is a project of students and faculty to shine a light on underreported or unreported stories that should be of great interest to the public. The Project Censored movie tells a part of its important story.

The 2010 story centers on two journalists, hired by FOX News as investigative journalists, who became whistleblowers when they were instructed to report “news” that they knew was not true.

According to Project Censored, in February 2003, FOX News argued that there was no prohibition on media outlets distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. And skipping ahead, FOX News won on that claim! But to backtrack to provide some context, the issue was the placement of Bovine Growth Hormone, BGH, manufactured by Monsanto, into the milk stream without labeling it.

A husband and wife reporting team produced a four-part series revealing the health risks for humans in drinking milk from cows treated with BGH to boost milk production. FOX News wanted the reporters to add statements from Monsanto that the couple knew were not factual. When they refused to make the suggested edits, the couple was fired. They sued and a Florida jury decided the couple was wrongfully fired. FOX News appealed the case. Basically, the Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is no law, rule, or even regulation against distorting the news and that the decision to report honestly resides with the news outlet.

FOX News was joined in its court action by other news outlets, notably Cox Television, Inc., a sister organization to the Cox-owned Atlanta Journal and Constitution. In an incredible and chilling turnabout, the two truth-telling journalists were ordered to pay FOX News millions of dollars to cover the company’s attorney fees. The reporters were told by FOX News executives, “The news is what we say it is.”

And there we have it. Now, this Court action immediately affected the right of people in the US to know what is in the food they buy. Media consolidation in the US is such that six corporations control 90% of the junk food news and entertainment fed to the people of the US and around the world. And US Courts not only say that this is OK, but also decided that it’s OK for them to knowingly lie to the public. That, in a nutshell, is why the US media lie: Because they can. And that, in a nutshell, is why the people of the US are increasingly turning to RT and alternative news outlets for information: Because they must.

Welcome to British Columbia, where you ‘pay to play’

If we remove all mentions of Canada, its provinces, & any other identifying names & such, then nobody would know that this is a story coming out of a G8 country; a country that is considered transparent, honest & fair. British Columbia (BC) is run by provincial Liberal party; having pretty much the same political agenda / platform as the federal Liberal party (the same party whose head is the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau).

As the article below explores that "vast sums flooding the system" & businesses are essentially buying & paying their way through the government. Isn't that considered bribery? Isn't bribery essentially paying another party to influence their decision in your favour? Canadian foreign departments, missions, & businesses are urged to not bribe any foreign government to get their way but apparently, the affairs in Canada's interior is telling a different story.

Heck, the article even compares BC pay-to-get-your-way scheme against some of the world's most corrupt countries in Middle East & Africa. In some cases, heck, even they have better rules than BC. And, Canada thumbs its nose, in matters of fairness & transparency, towards the rest of the world.

This leads to my second point: corruption in government. In developing countries, a government is considered corrupt when its government officials & wealthy citizens / private businesses are into each other to the point where there's a clear sense of collusion. It is considered corruption when the wealthy elites can buy off their politicians with money, or, as I said above, bribe.

The law & order clearly seems to be non-existent when lobbyists can shower anyone, except an MLA, with any amount of money & gifts, to get whatever they want, to the point, that those lobbyists can easily lie in lawsuits to win them. Government officials can easily become lobbyists themselves quite easily & readily, & use the connections they have built up in the government to wield influence. Isn't that corruption in the government? Please keep in mind that we are still talking about the provincial government of British Columbia in Canada, & not Zimbabwe, Uganda, Algeria, Pakistan, India, or Vietnam etc.

Then, the question of my favourite topic comes to the fore: democracy. Is this democracy when companies like Kinder Morgan can pay almost $700,000 to get their controversial pipeline approved, when there's a sizable group of citizens who are against that approval? Is this democracy when ordinary citizens are being asked, or perhaps, forced, to fork out more money than they should / could, in the form of taxes, insurance, healthcare, & housing costs, when almost 3,000 lobbyists are telling their clients in BC that you can get anything done in BC, as long as you are willing to pay up big fees; the bigger the fees, the better your chances of getting what you want.

So, unlimited funds can be funneled towards a provincial government, by wealthy citizens / private businesses to get what they want, & collude with government to influence its policies, & all the while, railroading ordinary citizens in the process, who are not being heard at all. Does it look like that should be happening in Canada or Nigeria, for instance? How many people around the world knew or even thought that something like this happens in Canada? But this is happening in Canada. These developed countries of the Global North & West talk big, & thumb their noses at developing countries, when it comes to corruption & democracy, all the while, the same things are taking place in their own backyards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/in-british-columbia-big-money-means-big-problems/

Last year, the British Columbia Liberal Party raised more money than any ruling party in any other province in the country. It pulled in 13 times more than the Quebec Liberal Party, six times more than the Alberta NDP, twice what the Liberals did in Ontario. That’s a province with three times B.C.’s population, an economy triple the size, and a head-office count quadruple that of the Western province. And all this was before Ontario brought in sweeping reforms ending corporate and union donations, dropping the ceiling on annual individual donations and banning cash-for-access fundraisers.

Bananas, right? Now consider that in the three years since Christy Clark’s majority win, the Liberals have added some $32.5 million to their war chest. In the first 12 days of January alone, they took in almost half a million dollars in contributions, approaching what Manitoba’s ruling NDP did in all of 2015 in the run-up to that province’s last election. And consider that in the 10 years leading up to 2015, the B.C. Liberal Party took in $3.1 million from Alberta oil and gas firms, almost twice as much money as that province’s governing party at the time, the Progressive Conservatives.

British Columbians’ faith in democracy is being undermined by the vast sums flooding the system, and there’s a growing concern that their government is essentially being bought and paid for by a wealthy clique. And with figures like those above, it’s getting hard to argue against the idea that democracy in B.C. has devolved to which party can amass the biggest pile of dough.

B.C. political fundraising is a free-for-all. Parties can accept any amount of money, property or services from any corporation, union or person living anywhere in the world. The single limit to this frenzied giving: charities are barred from donating.

This puts B.C. in a unique position. Most of the developed world, and some of the planet’s most corrupt nations, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kenya and Russia, set ceilings on party donations, according to data compiled by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, based in Stockholm, Sweden. All of North America, all of Eastern Europe and the entire Arab world except Lebanon and Iraq bar donations like the $30,000-to-$50,000 ones the B.C. Liberal party has received in recent years from foreign donors.

It’s so bad that the New York Times last month went to B.C. to write a scathing piece on the Clark government’s “unabashedly cozy relationship between private interests and government officials.” Deputy Premier Rich Coleman said he found the reporting “laughable.” Outside Liberal ranks, few found it funny.

It is not known how much the B.C. Liberal Party has pulled in from outside Canada. But Dermod Travis of IntegrityBC has compiled a list that he calls the “$100,000 club.” It has 177 members, including developers, mining companies and energy firms that have fed the party some $55.7 million in the past decade.

Critics have pointed out that B.C.’s conflict of interest commissioner Paul Fraser—whose son is a long-time friend of Clark’s and sits on her executive council, as a deputy minister—has never, in 9 years, found the Clark government in violation of B.C.’s conflict of interest legislation. ...

Critics similarly point to contributions by large companies like Ecotex Healthcare Linen Service ($115,000 donated to the Liberal party since 2005), Emil Anderson Construction ($50,000), Kinder Morgan and its industry supporters ($719,000) and Imperial Metals and its subsidiaries ($195,000). Those same companies have, respectively, received a 20-year government laundry contract, a $36-million six-lane highway expansion contract, Clark’s approval for a controversial pipeline and a permit to open a new mine. In the case of the mine approval, it came one year after Imperial Metal’s controlling shareholder, N. Murray Edwards, hosted a $1-million fundraiser for Clark in Calgary. There is no suggestion of nefarious activity in any of these cases. But critics say the mere appearance of conflict is worrisome.

None of it is up to the public to litigate. It is, however, up to government to adopt regulations, legislation and practices that prevent even the whiff of conflict of interest from sullying B.C.’s global reputation.

“The only people not embarrassed by any of this are Christy Clark and the ruling Liberals,” B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan told Maclean’s. “There is nothing funny about giving donors and loyalists a billion-dollar tax cut while making regular people pay for it with higher bills for car insurance, electricity and health care. There’s nothing funny about a ruling party raking in millions from developers while watching housing prices soar out of reach, without lifting a finger to help. Politics is about trying to make things better. This is embarrassing. I’m certainly not laughing.”
...

The mudslinging shows how badly rules are needed, regardless of which party is in power.

B.C.’s financing free-for-all is perfectly mirrored by its ballooning lobbying industry. Few rules or regulations govern it, either. Competition is tight: 3,014 lobbyists and organizations fought for access in B.C. this year, 1,195 more than even Ontario.

Unlike Ontario, however, lobbyists in B.C. can shower almost anyone except an MLA with gifts and benefits of any value, as often as they want. They can use false and misleading information in pleading their case. They don’t have to declare when they’re lobbying: the sales jobs can be couched as a friendly chat between old pals. And all but ministers, who are subject to a 12-month cooling-off period, can do it the second they quit their job as a public office holder. B.C.’s lobbying watchdog has urged the Clark government to adopt regulations that would limit all of the above. Last summer, when Elizabeth Denham stepped down from the role, she made it her “parting wish.”

At this point, “there is no daylight between government relations roles at B.C.’s biggest companies and the premier’s office,” one lobbyist based outside the province told Maclean’s, speaking anonymously, given concerns of professional retribution. “That line has been completely erased. That is literally their social network. They go to each other’s cottages. They take trips together,” he adds, describing raucous dinners he has attended with Clark’s staff and a group of select lobbyists. The mix of warmth and competitiveness has fostered an unusual and deeply unhealthy intimacy. “No one is breaking any rules or laws or doing anything criminal,” the lobbyist is quick to add. “B.C. has no rules, so everything goes. It’s like the Wild West: only the fittest survive.”

Infinite leniency and infinite money make for a toxic mix. “I have to tell my bosses, ‘In B.C., you have to pay to play.’ ” If your client doesn’t donate, it puts you at a competitive disadvantage, he adds. It’s a small province, after all; the Liberals know exactly who is funding them, the lobbyist notes, magnifying the role donors play and the access they receive in return.

This gets to the root of the problem: the huge amount of money soaking the system, he says . “The only way to fix it is by taking money out.” If changes don’t come soon, he adds, “British Columbians will lose all faith in their politicians.”

In response to increasingly loud concerns over political financing, the Liberals often point to “real-time disclosure,” which the party deemed a radical new approach to financing when it was launched last March. Ever since, the party has disclosed new contributions on its website within 10 days of receipt. That is, the party is now doing what B.C.’s Election Act forces it to do annually, just faster. The problem is, no one wanted speedier transparency. 86% of British Columbians do, however, want corporate and union donations banned.
...

Nevertheless, on Jan. 23, Clark dined with Kelowna’s elite at a $5,000-a-plate event at the Mission Hill Winery, which has pumped $200,000 into B.C. Liberal coffers since 2005. (The next day, the premier refused to name her guests, who were shuttled into the winery in dark vehicles, cloaked in secrecy.)

Clark, perhaps the best retail politician to ever emerge from B.C., is widely expected to cruise to a second majority in B.C. in the coming May election, giving the Liberals a record fifth term. Still, she’d do well to consider the main take-away from Donald Trump’s stunning, unforeseen win last November. Pitchforks come out when people get angry over the influence wielded by political donors, when a cozy system appears to benefit only the ruling class, when regular folk feel ignored and defeated, and politicians don’t notice.

US states score poorly on cronyism & corruption test

It's quite surprising to me that the whole world thinks that corruption & cronyism don't exist in the Western world. Somehow, white skin means fairness, equality, merit, compassion etc. International organizations, like Transparency International, deride governments of Brazil, India, South Africa, Nigeria, Russia etc. for their unaccountability, corruption, & no ethics, but governments of UK, Canada, US, Australia, Japan etc. get a free pass. Why?

The latest election of Donald Trump, & then his appointments of his own son-in-law & daughter, in the White House posts are great examples of nepotism & cronyism (yes, his daughter doesn't have an official post, but she is sitting in on all presidential meetings.) Government lawmakers keep threatening that Trump could be in serious legal trouble if he doesn't divest of his personal business while he is the President of US, but they all seem to be empty threats. Some might say here that that's because he is a Republican, & Republicans / Conservatives are corrupt. But, as the article states, that even Democratic states have the same level of corruption as Republican states. So, the corruption is bipartisan. Ironically, corruption is one thing which unites every stateperson, all over the world, regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, etc.

As I always say that the colour of the human blood is red. Every human is same. Corruption in the government exists everywhere; be it in Pakistan, or UK, or US, or Canada or Madagascar. Politics has become the playground of the rich & corrupt. Ethically conscientious people are never given a chance to prove their mettle in the highest office in the land. Corrupt people in the government don't want an ethically conscientious person in charge of their affairs because then they will need to straighten themselves up. As Mr. Stern says in the last paragraph of the article that, "it’s very, very difficult for legislatures to focus on these things and improve them because they don’t want these laws, they don’t want to enforce them, and they don’t want to fund the people enforcing them."

Furthermore, what does it say about the democracy in the West. Democracy is supposed to mean that the general public not only freely chooses its own leaders but also keeps a tab on its leaders, & if & when, they seem to be not working for the general public, then the the public has the full control to remove that leadership. Well, in the absence of accountability of opaque state records, wouldn't you say that it would be a little hard to keep an eye on what the government is actually doing, & hence, harder still to remove them if they don't follow what the general public wants them to do. So, if the general public doesn't have any control on the government, then is this democracy? May I kindly remind you here that merely voting is not democracy. Voting takes place in many places. That doesn't mean that there's democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.rt.com/usa/321359-state-governments-ethics-integrity/

The majority of state governments are hotbeds of cronyism, with the public shut out from true accountability by loophole-ridden open-records laws, according to a new report on the integrity of statehouses throughout the US.

Eleven of the 50 US states received failing grades for transparency and accountability, while only three earned a score about 70%. Alaska, with a score of 76, a "C" grade, was rated highest by the Center for Public Integrity, which just released its 2015 State Integrity Investigation, "a data-driven assessment of state government." Michigan came in dead last, with a score of 51.

"The State Integrity Investigation assesses the existence, effectiveness, & accessibility (i.e. citizen access) of key governance & anti-corruption mechanisms through a qualitative & indicator-based research process," the Center for Public Integrity and its partner, Global Integrity, explained their comprehensive probe of state laws & political cultures from coast to coast.

The investigation's findings are a cavalcade of embarrassing revelations about the overall climate of government transparency in the United States. From states that exempt entire branches of their government from open-records laws to states that absolutely refuse to seriously investigate ethics violations, the report's findings are “disappointing but not surprising,” said Paula A. Franzese, a state government ethics expert at the Seton Hall University School of Law.

In New Mexico, for instance, legislators passed a resolution – without needing the governor's approval – to exempt their emails from public records inquiries. "I think it’s up to me to decide if you can have my record,” one New Mexico representative said of the 2013 effort.

Delaware's Public Integrity Commission, the state's lobbying & ethics watchdog, has just two full-time staff members, the probe revealed. In 2013, a special state prosecutor found that the agency was so shorthanded, it was not able “to undertake any serious inquiry or investigation into potential wrongdoing.”

In 70% of states, part-time state lawmakers can vote on bills that present a clear conflict of interest with their private dealings. Such was the case in Missouri this year, when a legislator introduced a bill barring municipalities from banning plastic bags at grocery stores. The lawmaker – the director for the Missouri Grocers Association – claimed he was standing up for shopper rights. The bill eventually passed, overriding the governor's veto.

The investigation included assessments of 13 categories within all 50 state governments. Those categories included: public access to information, political finance, electoral oversight, executive accountability, legislative accountability, judicial accountability, state budget processes, state civil service management, procurement, internal auditing, lobbying disclosure, ethics enforcement agencies, & state pension fund management.

For each state, the Center for Public Integrity & Global Integrity contacted numerous state-level organizations & experts involved in government transparency & accountability to weigh-in on a host of questions pertaining to state government operations. The report, then, is a result of a "blend of social science and journalism" with an "aim to assessing the most salient corruption risks in each state."
...

Many lowest-ranked states are bastions of American conservatism, where politicians champion limited government. Yet those states, such as Nevada & Wyoming, were joined at the bottom by the likes of Pennsylvania & Delaware, East Coast states that are considered politically liberal compared to the rest of the US.

“It’s very, very difficult for legislatures to focus on these things and improve them because they don’t want these laws, they don’t want to enforce them, and they don’t want to fund the people enforcing them," said Robert Stern, former president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a now-defunct organization dedicated to ethics & lobbying laws in local & state governments.

Here's how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill

Since, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is already well on its way to being passed ... & going to destroy North American labour market, I won't say much here. What I liked about this article was the facts & figures of how much each of the Senators in the American Senate received money from corporations which wanted TPP to pass so desperately. (Hint: the money they received is more than an average, middle class, American may make in a year).

On a side note, you should realize that if corporations are so desperate to want to get TPP passed, then it is definitely not going to be something good for the average Joe & Jane on main street.

Getting back to the main topic, as always, I would ask the reader that would you call this a democracy? Does this happen in a transparent & democratic government where Senators (one of them is 81 years old) receive such lucrative "gifts", while signing on a trade partnership, which will only going to kill any & all kinds of labour movements? Is this trade partnership going to help that single mother who is juggling multiple jobs to raise her little family while the rich Senators get more rich by voting for a trade partnership that will destroy her job & not raise her minimum wage? What about that poor student who is trying to brighten up his future by working part-time & getting a degree?

As I always say, political corruption exists everywhere. The primary difference is that it happens all out in the open in so-called "corrupt" countries (i.e. developing countries), whereas, in developed countries, those same "corrupt" practices are first made "legal". Since, the same "corrupt" practices become "legal", government officials are free to indulge in them as much as they want, & the governments of North America & Europe get the blessing of Transparency International (the organization, which is a joke in my view, similar to UN, World Bank, IMF etc.)

As the spokesperson for anti-corruption group, Represent Us, says in the end of the article that “how can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, & lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests? As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax & as Congress hotly debates the biggest trade deal in a generation, its backers have turned on the cash spigot in the hopes of getting it passed.
...

Fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators. ...

Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling & dealing by the world’s most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts.

Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January & March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

- Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.

- The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.

- The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden & 7 other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans & handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

- In just 24 hours, Wyden & 5 of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, & Bill Nelson of Florida – caved & voted for fast-track.

- Bennet, Murray, & Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the 3 of them. Bennet, who comes from ... Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January & March 2015 ... .

- Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana & a Republican from Alaska.

- Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, ... received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January & March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), & Procter & Gamble ($12,900). ...

- 7 Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track & are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January & March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.

- Arizona senator & former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his 7th Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.

“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” said Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their reelection campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.

“How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, & lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests?” Gidfar said. “As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”

Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups

As I always say that corruption in western developed countries happens "under the table" & in eastern developing countries, "over the table." The perception around the world is that western developed countries are fair & free of corruption.

Ironically, these developed countries are the cause of all problems in the world; be it the climate change, terrorism, smuggling (guns, drug, human), financial & economic (recession, money laundering, world wide interest rate fixing scandal etc.), human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA black prisons around the world, UN soldiers exploiting local civilians for sexual purposes etc.) etc.

This piece talks about how international fossil fuel companies; BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil publicly say that they are working towards sustainability & mitigating the adverse effects on the environment of their business, but secretly, payoff climate-deniers to create doubts in people's minds about climate change. Shell has just been permitted to exploit one of the last areas of the world not been spoiled by oil exploration activities, yet; the Arctic. Say goodbye to the pristine beauty of Arctic. Soon Antarctica will be in their crosshairs.

If you think I am wrong to say developed countries are the cause of most world-wide problems, then you should read my posts in my blog from Jan 2015 onwards, & you'll see how am I asserting that, or you can keep reading from now onwards, & you may learn something valuable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/25/fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups

The oil giant BP has announced that they will no longer fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to US state legislators. It is the latest sign that some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies appear to be warming to the overwhelming evidence that the unabated use of their products poses severe risks of disrupting the climate.

Last month, BP & Royal Dutch Shell announced their support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to commit to reduce heat-trapping emissions, invest in renewable energy, & show how their current business model would hold up against the strict limits on future emissions needed to limit the risk of major climate disruption.

Shell chief executive Ben van Buerden recently stated that “climate change is real & a threat we want to act upon. We are not aligning with sceptics.”

Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16m (£11m) between 1998 & 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation about climate science, now prominently acknowledges on their website that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society & ecosystems.”

But appearances can be deceiving.

For one, BP still channels funds through its political action committee to climate science-denying US policymakers such as senator James Inhofe, chair of the senate’s environment & public works committee. While such direct contributions to politicians are a matter of public record, companies continue to sow climate doubt & influence climate policy in ways that are far more opaque.

For instance, recently released documents show that ExxonMobil gave more than $75,000 between 2008 & 2010 to secretly support the work of Willie Soon, a contrarian climate researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, well after the company announced it would halt such funding. Soon’s research has sought to downplay the human influence on global warming.

This follows revelations that Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the US, spent $400,000 between 2006 & 2015 to fund Soon, supporting his research, Congressional testimony, & other “deliverables” while specifying that its funding be disclosed only with express company permission.

Robert Gehri, the Southern Company employee who authorised this funding was one of a dozen industry representatives who, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, created a $6m campaign in 1998 that misled the public about climate science. Among other strategies, he oversaw the covert funding of “independent” scientists.

Some of the largest fossil fuel companies now publicly accepting mainstream climate science, continue to support climate denial through influential lobbying groups & trade associations. Shell, Chevron, & ExxonMobil still fund Alec, which misleadingly describes climate change as “a historical phenomenon for which debate will continue over the significance of natural & [human-caused] contributions.”

With their support, Alec promotes “model legislation” to repeal state renewable energy standards & roll back other climate & energy policies.

Shell, BP, Chevron, & ExxonMobil are also members & funders of the API & the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Late last year, a leaked presentation from WSPA revealed a stealth campaign to block climate policies in California by backing a constellation of astroturf groups with names such as the “California Drivers Alliance” & “Californians Against Higher Taxes”.

Exactly how much fossil fuel companies have spent to support disinformation remains shrouded in secrecy, in part because they are not required to report their political & public relations spending. Robert Brulle, a social scientist at Drexel University, estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed from corporations, ideological foundations, & groups that oppose climate policy & often sow doubt about mainstream climate science.

Such spending is big money in politics, but it pales in comparison to the staggering costs of climate change. New York City alone estimates it will cost nearly $20bn over a decade to protect its citizens against rising seas & more extreme weather. The bipartisan Risky Business Project estimates that over the next 15 years, sea-level rise & storm surge are expected to increase damage from East & Gulf Coast storms by $2bn to $3.5bn. They also conclude that more extreme heat could cause corn, wheat, soy & cotton yields to decline 10% or more in some southern & midwestern counties.

Who will pay these & other costs of preparing for now inevitable changes? Right now, by default, this responsibility falls largely to taxpayers.

But shouldn’t fossil fuel companies bear some responsibility to pay for the harms resulting from their products?

Tobacco companies were found liable for damage from cigarettes. Those companies also deceived the public about the realities of scientific research on smoking. In fact, they funded some of the same scientists & groups fossil fuel companies have relied on to spread misinformation. The tobacco companies were held accountable, in part, because they colluded to deceive the public & policymakers about the risks their products caused.

Similarly, after scientific evidence on the cancer-causing risks of asbestos was established, producers of asbestos & manufacturers of products containing it were also held liable for damages.

The magnitude of the fossil energy industry’s contribution to the climate problem is enormous. Researchers have found that just 90 entities – including the world’s largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, & Shell – are responsible for extracting the coal, oil, & gas that have produced about two-thirds of all industrial carbon pollution. For decades, these same companies have sought to obscure the risks of using their products, & sought to deny & delay regulation – increasing the risks society faces from a changing climate.

It is not too late for fossil fuel companies to take responsible action. Shell & BP’s support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to invest in low-carbon energy is a first step. But investors – & society at large – should expect far more.

We should expect fossil fuel companies to stop supporting climate disinformation & distance themselves publicly from trade associations & lobbying groups that do. We should expect them to make their political spending transparent. And we should expect them to pay a fair share of the costs of limiting the damages from climate change, which a more expedited transition to low carbon economy could have – & should have – avoided.

Peter C Frumhoff is the director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists & a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University & the author with Erik M Conway of Merchants of Doubt, which is the subject of a new documentary, & The Collapse of Western Civilisation. 

Climate-sceptic US senator given funds by BP PAC

I know it's no secret that climate-skeptic senators, congressmen, & ministers are financially supported by oil & gas companies, but what I am trying to show with this article is that this is the level of honesty, in the government leaders, in the so-called democratic Western hemisphere. The general public doesn't know how many millions are spent from top federal to municipal levels by lobbyists to change viewpoints & get their points across. I consider lobby money as "bribe". Whoever can give the biggest bribe gets the biggest piece of action.

How can these leaders, & esp. this senator, who is the environmental committee, while being a climate-skeptic & getting paid by BP (British Petroleum), do anything useful, climate-wise, for the public?

On top of that, BP is also trying to show to the public that they are working tirelessly towards alternative energy & a green planet. Corruption & lies at the government & business levels. Where is Transparency International now?

Shouldn't this be happening in the authoritarian & corrupt regimes in the Eastern hemisphere of the world? That's why, I always say that democracy in the West is only on its face; inside, it's no different from any authoritarian & corrupt regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/22/climate-sceptic-us-politician-jim-inhofe-bp-political-action-committee

One of America’s most powerful & outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax & challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment & public works committee in January, & then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”

The BP PAC is funded by contributions from senior US executives & company staffers who sent in contributions to the PAC totalling more than $1m between 2010 & 2014. Over the same period the committee paid out $655,000 to candidates, with more than 40 incumbent senators benefiting.

Yet, BP & Dudley have long called for world leaders to intervene & impose tough regulatory measures on the fossil fuel industry. Publishing its 98-page research paper, Energy Outlook 2035, last month, BP warned: “To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policymakers beyond the steps already assumed.”

Dudley has personally given $19,000 since June 2011 to the BP PAC – very close to the $5,000-a-year maximum allowable by law. Although Dudley is resident in Britain, he is eligible to give via the BP PAC because he is a US national.

While the sums channelled to Inhofe’s campaign represent only a small proportion of the BP PAC’s election spending & the senator’s own campaign funds, they show how unafraid the committee has been to spread its donations to the most controversial candidates. According to the BP PAC website, it financially supports election candidates “whose views and/or voting records reflect the interests of BP employees”.

Records suggest Inhofe’s 2014 campaign was a funding priority for the BP PAC, ranking as one of the top recipients of committee funds when compared with disbursements to other serving senators.

This was despite Inhofe’s senate battle not being a close one. His opponent, Matt Silverstein, who Inhofe beat comfortably in last November’s midterms, had a tiny campaign war chest by comparison.

BP was asked whether it was appropriate for the PAC to make campaign contributions to such a vocal opponent of action on climate change, or for Dudley to be contributing towards such payments.

In a statement BP replied: “Voluntary donations [by staff] to the BP employees’ political action committee in the US are used to support a variety of candidates across the political spectrum & in many US geographies where we operate.

“These candidates have one thing in common: they are important advocates for the energy industry in the broadest sense.”

It added: “BP’s position on climate change is well known & is long-established. We believe that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.”

PACs exist in the US where companies & trade unions cannot give directly to the campaigns of those running for office. Instead funds are pooled from staff – often senior executives – into a PAC, & disbursed by a committee board, often in a manner sympathetic to the company’s lobby & other interests.

Other US oil industry leaders, including Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, make contributions to their own corporate PACs – money which in many cases can then be traced to Inhofe & other climate-sceptic politicians.

But Tillerson & other peers have not been as outspoken as BP & Dudley in calling for state intervention to tackle climate change, making the BP boss’s links to Inhofe campaign finance more controversial.

Last week Obama said it was “disturbing” that Inhofe had been made chair of the senate environment committee. In broader criticism of unnamed political opponents, he then went on to say: “In some cases you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry. And there is a lot of money involved.”

Inhofe is unabashed about election campaign financing he receives from the industry. In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, he wrote: “Whenever the media asked me how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, my unapologetic answer was ‘not enough’.”

According to data compiled from public filings by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Inhofe’s campaign raised $4.84m between 2009 & 2014, with $1.77m coming from PACs, many of them sponsored by fossil fuel companies.

BP’s PAC was more active in the US 2014 election cycle than any other for more than a decade. Despite insisting it is non-partisan, 69% of contributions to federal election candidates in recent years have been to Republican politicians. This is a stronger bias than most other corporate PACs, according to the CRP.

There are, however, other leading recipients who have attracted criticism from climate change campaigners, including Republican House speaker John Boehner & fellow Republican, Sen Mike Enzi from Wyoming.

When asked his views on climate change in January, Boehner said: “We’ve had changes in our climate, although scientists debate the sources, in their opinion, of that change. But I think the real question is that every proposal out of this administration with regard to climate change means killing American jobs.”

“I don’t see [Obama] as trying to control pollution. I see him trying to put business out of business,” Enzi said last year.

Campaign contributions is just one aspect of US political engagement linked to BP & its staff. Filings show the oil & gas group spends millions on lobbying efforts.

The CRP classifies BP as a “heavy hitter”, ranking it among the top 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since 1988. Its PAC ranks as the six largest such body with a sponsor company that is ultimately part of a non-US multinational.