Search Results: alec

One year after nearly half of Duke’s shareholders voted in favor of the company disclosing its political contributions, the company has made little progress to address the shareholder concerns. According to the Center for Political Accountability, from 2013 to 2014 the company made small changes to its political spending policies, like adding board oversight, but it has still fallen far short of the full disclosure that shareholders want.

Given Duke’s track record, shareholders are right to be concerned about the company’s political contributions. In fact, it’s hard to overstate Duke’s role in making North Carolina politics feel like the Wild West. In a recent report, the Institute for Southern Studies (ISS) rated the utility giant as the No. 1 corporate power-broker in the state of North Carolina. ISS ranked Duke fifth in state election spending for dropping $944,250 into state elections in 2012 and 2014, and it rated Duke second in lobbying clout. Taken together ISS writes that Duke is, “a clear leader in its ability to both elect and pressure state lawmakers.”

Continue Reading

Share/Bookmark

Spring is in the air and that can only mean one thing: Investors across the country are gearing up to take on corporate executives at annual shareholder meetings.

Shareholders have filed more than 100 resolutions at companies asking for more information about electioneering and lobbying spending. Year after year, these types of resolutions are the most popular type of social resolutions that companies see. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate political spending, investors have filed more than 500 resolutions calling for more transparency in corporate political activity.

This is also the time of year that the Corporate Reform Coalition, a group of investors, good governance advocates, elected officials and labor organizations (chaired by Public Citizen) steps up to make some serious hay around political spending resolutions.

This year, the coalition is highlighting ten companies’ political spending proposals. These companies represent a diverse set of industries, but they all have one thing in common: a lack of true transparency when it comes to how they influence policy in Washington. These companies are some of the biggest spenders on politics, and their influence peddling has gridlocked important issues like climate change, net neutrality and financial reform.

Continue Reading

Most of us use Google products on a daily basis and are familiar with the company’s powerful email and Internet search services. But these days, there is a lot more to Google’s technological operations — and they come with myriad new ways to collect our information. Now the company that used Street View cars to collect unsuspecting people’s information, and received the Federal Trade Commission’s largest civil penalty ever for misleadingly tracking Safari users, is reaching new levels of political power.

A new Public Citizen report, “Mission Creep-y,” explores Google’s accruing power, both in terms of personal data collection, and federal and state government influence, raising the question of whether it could become too powerful to be held accountable.

Key findings about Google’s growing political power:

  • Over the first three quarters of 2014, Google ranked first among all corporations in lobbying spending, according to OpenSecrets.org, and is on pace to spend $18.2 million on federal lobbying this year. In fact, it has spent $1 million more on lobbying than PhRMA, the powerful trade association of the pharmaceutical industry.
  • Since 2012, no company has spent more money on federal lobbying than Google.
  • Of 102 lobbyists the company has hired or retained in 2014, 81 previously held government jobs. Meanwhile, a steady stream of Google employees has been appointed to high-ranking government jobs – an indication of the company’s growing influence in national affairs.
  • Google’s political action committee (PAC) spent $1.61 million this year, according to Federal Election Commission records. That surpasses, for the first time, PAC expenditures by Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs.
  • Google funds about 140 trade associations and other nonprofits across the ideological spectrum – including some working in issue areas relevant to Google’s practices on privacy, political spending, antitrust and more.

Continue Reading

It’s been a big week for climate change. Here’s a roundup of the news in case you’ve had trouble keeping up:

Yesterday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hosted a UN Summit on climate change in New York, convening leaders in government, business, finance and civil society to “galvanize and catalyze climate action.” The idea was that world leaders would announce major new initiatives. To some extent it was a success, although it didn’t prompt major announcements from the U.S. or China, the 800-pound carbon emitters in the room.

President Barack Obama spoke at the summit, urging aggressive action, particularly from China. He announced an executive order requiring federal agencies to “factor climate resilience” into foreign aid and development decisions. Regarding major actions on climate change, he simply referred to the EPA’s proposed rule to curb carbon emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, which Public Citizen strongly supports and seeks to strengthen. He also noted that the U.S. is on target to meet its pledge to cut emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. For its part, China said it would try to peak its carbon emissions “as early as possible.”

Just last week, the U.S. made two other announcements:

  • The Department of Energy proposed a rule that would require hotels to use more efficient heating and cooling equipment. The rule could reduce carbon emissions by 11.29 metric tons, which is like taking 2.3 million cars off the road. It’s also another example of how climate change policy makes good economic sense. DOE estimates that the rule would cost businesses up to $9.39 million per year but save them up to $13.1 million per in energy costs. Those benefits are in addition to $7.2 million annual savings from reduced carbon emissions.
  • The White House announced that it secured voluntary commitments from some large chemical manufacturers and retailers to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, more quickly than the law requires. This is an important development, as HFCs are 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide in causing climate change.

There were several other important developments around the summit as well:

  • The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate issued a blockbuster report concluding that stopping climate change might not cost us anything. The crux of the analysis: Over the next 15 years, we’ll spend $90 trillion on new infrastructure world-wide anyway. Ambitious measures to combat climate change would add just 5% to that figure. When you factor in the benefits – like better public health from reduce air pollution – the measures will likely be net-positive for the economy.
  • New York City announced a major plan to increase the energy efficiency of buildings, which will set the city on target to curb its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. That’s the reduction that the UN has said industrialized countries must make to prevent catastrophic climate change.
  • The World Bank announced that 73 countries, 22 states, and over 1,000 businesses have pledged support for putting a price on carbon. The list includes the European Union and China, but not the U.S. It doesn’t provide any specifics on what anyone will do. Nor is it legally binding. But it’s a start.
  • The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, originally launched with Standard Oil money, led 180 institutions and hundreds of individuals in announcing that they will divest $50 billion in assets from fossil fuels.
  • Over 340 institutional investors worldwide that control at least $34 trillion in assets called on governments to put a price on carbon.
  • Google announced that it would sever ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) because of the group’s opposition to sound climate change policy. “Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place,” Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said. “And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.” Public Citizen pointed out that by the same reasoning, Google should leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well. Facebook soon announced that it too was leaving ALEC.

Ahead of the UN Summit, over 300,000 – and possibly as many as 400,000 – people joined the People’s Climate March in New York City. It was the largest climate demonstration in history, shattering the organizers’ goal of 100,000 participants. In addition to the march in New York, activists held 2,808 other events in 166 countries.

We also learned some bad news last week:

  • The Global Carbon Project reported that greenhouse emissions grew by 2.3 percent in 2013, demonstrating that we still have a long way to go in fighting climate change. We need to start moving in the opposite direction, quickly.
  • This past August was the hottest in recorded history. May and June also set new records, and April tied the record set in 2010.

So we have our work cut out for us. But we can solve this problem – and evidence is mounting that stopping climate change will benefit consumers and the economy, not hurt us. We just need to convince our governments to act. You can start by telling the EPA that you support its proposal to curb carbon pollution from existing power plants.

Google’s 2014 annual shareholder meeting attracted what may have been the largest protest ever on its Silicon Valley campus, and an acknowledgement by Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt that shareholders are loudly calling for more political spending transparency, as well as a promise to come up with an answer.

Public Citizen organized with a range of groups including Forecast the Facts, Eviction Free San Francisco, and Service Employees International Union-United Service Workers West (SEIU-USWW) to rally with more than 100 people on Wednesday afternoon in Mountain View, California.

Sam Jewler at Google Protest

Sam Jewler speaks at a protest outside of Google’s shareholder meeting in Mountain View, CA.

Then Sam Jewler of Public Citizen’s U.S. Chamber Watch entered Google’s shareholder meeting with Tim Smith of Walden Asset Management, who officially introduced the shareholder proposal calling on Google to disclose more about its political spending.

The proposal earned a 24 percent vote – which sounds small, but executives own all but 38 percent of the vote. That means almost two-thirds of voting shareholders supported the political spending disclosure resolution.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.