The governor’s race, which we’ve been working on for several months, is starting to heat up. With a scant nine months until the general election, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are spending wildly and showing off their shortcomings. At the same time, Jerry Brown is the most candidate-y non-candidate ever. (He has until March 17th to declare.)

On GreenGov2010.org we are checking in with influential folks from around the state for their take on the race. Recently we posted a short interview with outgoing Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who succinctly covers what she wants in a greener governor. Check it out here, and to share your thoughts, visit GreenGov2010.org.

• Read & write comments (No comments so far)
• Link to this post

No surprises here, just reminders of where this Governor has always stood. A few choice quotes from today’s Capitol Alert: “The governor twice this week portrayed environmental regulations as a barrier to job creation, at one point Tuesday suggesting that some environmentalists ‘become fanatics and they go overboard’ when they object to green technology projects.”

Here he makes another “shovels-ready” type of remark: “So now that we have so many projects that are ready to go, but still have maybe some obstacles there because of the permitting, what we want to do is go and move forward and have people start working, pouring cement, laying steel and putting a shovel into the ground and so on.”

See the full text here: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/02/schwarzenegger-147.html

• Read & write comments (1 comment so far)
• Link to this post

As part of our Building a Greener Governor campaign, we’ve launched GreenGov2010.org to hear from voters across California about how the next governor should lead on the environment. (Sign up as an environmental champ and post your thoughts on the gubernatorial race!)

We’re also posting news updates and videos from people we think have an interesting take on the November election, now just nine months away.

One person we recently talked to is longtime union and community organizer Javier Gonzalez. Javier is currently Executive Director of SOL (Strengthening Our Lives), based in Los Angeles. He spoke with CLCV’s Jenesse Miller about the environmental issues that are important to Latinos, some specific solutions to our environmental problems, and interesting experiences he’s had registering voters in California. Check it out right here or at GreenGov2010.org.

Watch more videos (or post your own commentary!) at GreenGov2010.org.

• Read & write comments (No comments so far)
• Link to this post

On January 21, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that represents a dramatic overhaul of the nation’s campaign finance system. In a 5-4 decision on Citizens United vs. FEC, the court declared that corporations are allowed to make unlimited independent expenditures to influence the outcomes of federal elections.

According to the Washington Post:

The decision upends the court’s precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that the justices had declared constitutional just six years ago.

The stunning decision will have major repercussions for efforts to protect the environment , reduce pollution, and move to a clean energy economy, as the national League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski wrote in today’s Huffington Post:

This ruling will open the floodgates for oil companies like Exxon Mobil to spend vast sums of money to support candidates who stand with them and against a clean energy future. That’s because for-profit corporations now have the ability to tap into their general treasuries for their electoral work, as opposed to having to work through more restricted connected federal PACs.

Consider the fact that Exxon Mobil’s federal PAC spent just over $800,000 in the 2007-2008 election cycle. During the same time period, the oil giant spent more than $45 million on lobbying at the federal level, an advocacy area where there are no limits on how much can be spent. Even a small diversion of these funds from lobbying to elections would drastically increase the spending imbalance between Big Oil and those of us fighting for a cleaner, healthier planet.

The bottom line is that with unlimited spending permitted in the electoral arena, misinformation campaigns by Big Oil and other special interests will be amplified and more lethal, potentially drowning out the voices of the majority of Americans who support investing in clean American energy and reducing harmful carbon pollution.

California political strategists immediately pointed out that the ruling could hurt Senator Barbara Boxer’s re-election chances. According to Democratic political strategist Bill Carrick, the ruling will give a boost to Boxer’s Republican opponents:

“This is obviously going to help conservatives and Republicans more than Democrats because corporations and corporate-backed outside groups tend to align with conservative interests. I think the amount of money that unions, trial lawyers and environmental groups can put into this is much, much lower than what corporate America can spend.”

As KQED-FM’s John Meyers points out, the ruling won’t impact other California races (e.g.: for governor or the state legislature) and in fact, can be seen as yet another example of the nation following the Golden State’s example:

[I]t is worth noting that the decision appears to create a national system that mirrors the one in existence here in California since voters approved Proposition 34 almost ten years ago — a system where contributions made in support or opposition of a candidate, but independently of that candidate’s campaign, aren’t subject to any limits.

“Now the federal system is the same as California,” said Jessica Levinson, political director of the Center for Governmental Studies… Levinson says the ruling from the Supremes is a “game changer” in the world of political money, and will no doubt lead to a “flood” of money from big corporations and labor unions into the 2010 election season.

(Before we go any further, an important note: the ruling has no impact on races in California for governor, legislative seats, or other state constitutional officers. It only applies to campaigns for federal contests like those for Congress, and only then to independent political organizations; it did not wipe out existing campaign contribution limits made directly to candidates.)

So what kind of change has the no holds barred money allowed under Prop 34 brought to California politics? Plenty, according to a report last year from the state’s campaign watchdogs, the Fair Political Practices Commission.

In many ways, the world of independent expenditures, “IEs” in political parlance, has meant candidate controlled committees are no longer the main focus of California’s campaign cash bonanza. And CGS’ Levinson says that for any state with laws on the books mimicking the national McCain-Feingold law at the heart of Citizens United, it won’t be long before they, too, become like the wild west of California politics.

President Obama released a statement on the ruling:

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

Obama said his administration would “get to work immediately with Congress on this issue” and collaborate with both Democratic and Republican leaders on a “forceful response.”

• Read & write comments (1 comment so far)
• Link to this post

Just as former Congressman Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor’s race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).

Insurance Commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner—not to be outdone by former eBay chief Meg Whitman’s announcement that as governor she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office—put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called “jobs” initiative” (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify. See Poizner’s full statement here.

Poizner’s and Whitman’s attacks on California’s landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from the political bloggers for the popular blog Calbuzz: “Smokestack Steve” and “Monoxide Meg.”

It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state’s natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to “Build a Greener Governor”— before the candidates (including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown) take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.

This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet. A version of the initiative, AB 118 (Logue) was just rejected on Monday by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

As Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), described in a piece that appeared this week in the California Progress Report:

“[T]he Assembly Natural Resources Committee rejected AB 118, legislation that would have overturned California’s landmark global warming law that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Not only would AB 118 have jeopardized public health and the environment, it would have imposed economic harm at a time when California is already struggling to regain our financial footing…”

“This bill, gutted and amended just this week, was part of a statewide campaign to stymie California’s economic recovery and deny workers the opportunity to benefit from the emerging new energy economy. [Assemblyman Dan] Logue, along with Rep. Tom McClintock and the association founded by Paul Gann, have filed an initiative nearly identical to AB 118 with the California Attorney General’s office with the intention of circulating it for signatures to qualify for the November 2010 general election…”

“Suspension of AB 32, the State’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, would cause economic distress and create an uncertain business environment for thousands of California employers who have played by the rules by investing in clean technology, setting up training programs, retooling equipment and taking other actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stimulate the economy.”

Read more from a separate article in the California Majority Report here.

Foes of AB 32 will continue to strategize a way to kill it – whether it’s by a governor’s executive order, legislation or a ballot initiative. CLCV and environmental partners are fending off these attacks by joining with our allies in labor, public health, consumer protection, and sustainable/progressive business communities to move our state in the right direction, by building a greener governor, a greener legislature, and a greener California. One easy step each of us can take is to sign up as an environmental champion on the “Build a Greener Governor” Web site. Will you join us?

• Read & write comments (4 comments so far)
• Link to this post

That’s the question asked by reporter John Myers (of the California Report) regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s decision to link funding of the state’s parks to new offshore oil drilling in his just-released budget proposal.

Myers tweeted: “Guv links $200 mil from the controversial T-Ridge oil drilling project 2 help pay for #caparks. Quite a political move: parks vs. drilling?”

Here’s the excerpt from the state budget summary released today:

“Fund State Parks from Tranquillon Ridge Oil Revenues — A reduction of $140 million in General Fund and replacement with revenue generated from the Tranquillon Ridge oil lease. It is estimated that the Tranquillon Ridge oil lease will generate $1.8 billion in advanced royalties over the next 14 years. This revenue will be used to fund state parks. The Governor’s Budget assumes that the State Lands Commission will approve the Tranquillon Ridge proposal. If not approved by the Commission, legislation will be necessary.”

The vast majority of environmental groups oppose the Tranquillon Ridge oil drilling proposal, but of course, no one wants to see our state’s incredible, envy-of-the-world state parks closed to the public. Is the governor trying to pit environmentalists against each other? Those who oppose lifting the 40-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling versus champions of our state parks?

Another major problem with the governor’s budget — it decimates public transit funding. According to the L.A. Times:

“One of the proposed budget’s biggest losers is public transit — and its riders. Through a complex gas tax swap, which would simultaneously eliminate the sales tax on gas and raise the per-gallon excise tax, roughly $1 billion would be siphoned off from bus and rail funds. The shift would gut Proposition 42, a voter-approved measure that determines how gas tax money is currently split. Mass transit, which now receives 20% of the taxes, would be cut out of the equation. Drivers would pay slightly less at the pump.”

Myers and Capitol Weekly’s Anthony York discussed these two anti-environmental proposals, as well as other components of the governor’s budget, in a recent and lively Podcast conversation:

Anthony York: “Another central contradiction to this governor, is that here is the ‘environmental governor’ stripping a billion dollars out of public transit funding… and I think there are public transit advocates that say, look, this doesn’t make any sense… here’s a guy who prides himself on, there was a bill passed, by Senator Darrell Steinberg, SB 375, that would call for more smart growth, and developing public transit projects in with new housing and business development, and here the governor’s decimating funding for public transit, how can you… call yourself the green governor, when really what you’re doing is building more roads which is creating an infrastructure for more cars, and also eliminating funding for public transit, and also oil drilling. I mean, that’s something we should talk about…”

John Myers: “On the issue of the environment, the governor is resurrecting in this budget the long-debated controversial plan for new offshore oil drilling in state waters off of Northern Santa Barbara county, a project known as Tranquillon Ridge, ‘T-Ridge’ in the lingo. And the governor is actually calling this $200 million to help the state budget because they’re saying, we get $100 million in the budget year that ends in July and another $100 million in the next year (York: if we start drilling yesterday)… Only $100 million is the up-front royalty, the rest of it is dependent on the price of oil and how fast we drill it out of the ocean floor. ..

In a very interesting political chess move, the governor has linked the T-Ridge oil drilling money to funding for state parks in this budget, and effectively saying a new offshore oil drilling proposal will help pay for the parks. Some people would say that’s brilliant politics, some would say it cynical politics, I’m not going to judge but it’s fascinating.”

I’m going to have to go with “cynical politics.” Remember, T-Ridge got really close to becoming a reality; it was passed by the Senate but not the Assembly.

And of course, the governor also proposed (under the false premise of job creation) exempting a large number of big constructions projects from the California Environmental Quality Act in his “State of the State” address (see our previous blog entry and a statement from CLCV CEO Warner Chabot).

There’s much, much more to hate in the governor’s budget proposal — and after all, the state is facing yet another multi-billion dollar shortfall, so painful cuts to education, social services, and more were expected. But is the governor looking at the full range of solutions to our budget woes? If you were the governor, what would you do?

• Read & write comments (3 comments so far)
• Link to this post

Say it ain’t so… As mentioned briefly in Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s State of the State address, the governor has yet ANOTHER outrageous proposal to exempt large projects from California’s bedrock environmental regulations. (Read CLCV’s press statement responding to the State of the State.)

According to existing language (which won’t be final until the full budget proposal is released Friday) this proposal would direct the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BTH) to select up to 20 private projects (along with 8 alternate projects) from across the state that require preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) because they have identified potential or actual significant impacts on the environment. These projects have only been examined by BTH for the number and quality of jobs that might be created and the size of the capital investment made by the project.

Within 40 days after the list has been announced and provided to the public, BTH will hold at least one (that’s right, there’s only the guarantee of ONE!!!) public hearing to consider public comments on the selected projects. The bill would also give permission to the Legislature to submit official comments to BTH.

Within 20 days of the public hearing deadline, BTH will announce its final selection of projects which will receive complete immunity from any judicial review of the certification of an EIR for one of the selected projects if it is certified within 1 year of enactment of the bill.

Wow.

This proposal is wealthy developer’s dream come true. It allows one agency to select private projects and then steamroll over the rights of the public to find out more about potential health and environmental impacts of those projects and demand mitigations for those impacts. Dozens of communities throughout California could lose their Constitutional rights to raise questions about and ultimately challenge huge private projects in their backyards.

Of course, we’ve heard this song and dance before. As explored in CLCV’s recently released 2009 Environmental Scorecard, demands for exemptions to California’s fundamental environmental quality laws book-ended the 2009 legislative session. Time and again during the tortured, ongoing budget negotiations, the governor and a small right-wing minority of legislators held the budget process hostage in order to attempt to extract concessions from legislative leaders.

From the CLCV Scorecard:

“If CEQA exemptions for highway projects were one bookend of the 2009 legislative session, AB 81 x3 (Hall) was the other. Introduced only 48 hours before the final day of the session, the bill exempts a proposed 75,000-person football stadium in the City of Industry from any further environmental review and from the two pending lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Promises of new construction jobs and a new NFL football team trumped respect for the rule of law, and the bill passed the Assembly. As he did with the highway projects in January 2009, Senator Steinberg first refused to hear the bill, and gave the parties to the lawsuits thirty days to settle their differences. The city of Walnut settled, but the other plaintiff, a group of eight citizens, did not, forcing Steinberg to follow through on his commitment to the Senate to hear the bill. It passed with the minimum number of votes needed and was ceremoniously signed by Governor Schwarzenegger.”

So, can legislators be expected to go along with this new set of proposals to chip away at CEQA in the name of short-term economic gain, as they did with the stadium bill, or will they resist this obvious attempt to gut California’s bedrock environmental quality law? See below for the response from Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg at today’s afternoon press conference responding to the Governor’s State of the State:

Reporter Question: [Given the CEQA exemption made for the football stadium last year, and the governor’s proposal for environmental exemptions for big projects]… “How much of a commitment are you making to protect the environment?”

Steinberg:
“We’re not going to go down that road. We can debate the stadium issue; that was the exception to the rule, because of the timing issues… But if we spend our time having a divisive and ideological debate about California’s landmark environmental laws, as opposed to taking the billions of dollars in our coffers and getting them out the door, we are missing an opportunity… Many of these projects are for weatherization… these are jobs! The first job of government is to take the resources you have and put them to work for working people.”

Bass :
“I want to address the stadium issue… It was in my district… I was a supporter of that. People in my caucus were worried about it, that it would be sending a signal… in no uncertain terms, I viewed it as an absolute exception, but in no way were we going to allow that to send a symbol…. at least in [Governor Schwarzenegger’s] speech, I haven’t seen the details, but the way it’s proposed it that we would give authority and not even know what the projects are… it’s an excuse to avoid environmental laws. I can’t imagine either one of those areas moving forward.”

We’ll post more information about the proposals soon, but for now, here’s how the issue has been covered in the press thus far:

Sacramento Bee 1/6/10
“Prepared text of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s State of the State address”
“There are four proposals to spur job growth that I will introduce… you will receive a measure to streamline the permitting of construction projects that already have a completed environmental report.”
http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2442268.html
(Archived video will be available later on the Governor’s website)

Los Angeles Times 1/6/10
“Schwarzenegger to propose spending $500 million for worker training”
“He will propose that lawmakers give him the power to inoculate developers of about 20 large projects from lawsuits over environmental regulations if they have already obtained approval of required plans to address environmental effects. That is similar to what the governor and lawmakers did in the fall for the City of Industry football stadium project. At the time, lawmakers said they did not intend for that legislation to set a precedent.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget6-2010jan06,0,3819397.story

San Francisco Chronicle 1/6/10
“Governor to outline jobs plan in speech”
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will announce a job creation package and renew calls for reform to the state’s budget process and tax structure during his final State of the State speech today. Sources familiar with the jobs package the governor will unveil today said it includes a proposal to eliminate some environmental regulations that have been targeted by Republicans in past negotiations.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/06/BATA1BDI6U.DTL

• Read & write comments (2 comments so far)
• Link to this post