There is overwhelming international consensus around the reality and human causes of the global climate crisis already affecting communities and habitats across the globe.

Despite the scientific consensus and the mounting evidence – found in the extreme weather events that have wreaked havoc and death throughout the U.S. – there is still widespread climate denial in the U.S.

Among our members of Congress are 182 climate deniers: 144 in the U.S. House of Representatives and 38 in the U.S. Senate. [i]And only roughly half of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions.[ii]

We know that this climate doubt was sowed (and funded) by Exxon and other Big Polluters that have known for more than four decades that its products were causing pollution and fundamentally disrupting the earth’s climate.

But if Big Polluters are the manufacturer of climate denial, Fox News is among its top distributors.

Fox Knew(s)

And like Exxon, the “powers that be” at Fox News seemingly understand the climate change threat, but perpetuate misinformation about the crisis anyway. In 2007, CEO Rupert Murdoch told Grist Magazine, “I think when people see that 99 percent of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it’s going to become a fact of life.”[iii] Yet Fox News’ coverage of climate change is dismissive and often misleading. A 2012 Union of Concerned Scientists report found that Fox News’ representation of climate science was accurate just 7 percent of the time over a six-month study period.[iv]

There’s More Than One Way to Deny a Crisis

Fox News uses a variety of tactics to misinform, cast doubt and deny the realities of the climate crisis.

Fox News is dismissive of climate disruption – regularly characterizing the crisis as a hoax, scam and superstition.

Its hosts manufacture preposterous rationalizations for the increasingly dire reports and climate-related weather events.

Fox News reports have stated or left unchallenged statements that the “temperature basically hasn’t changed much since the ice age,” that it’s actually “getting colder,” that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming,” that stopping the burning of coal might hurt plants and that “wind farms” may be causing climate change instead. [v]

Fox News denies the scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate disruption and peddles the myth that the issue is still heavily debated by “scientists on both sides.” “There are hundreds of thousands on both sides debating” the causes of global warming, said one Fox News contributor.[vi] Among active climate scientists, 97 percent agree that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming.

In fact, Fox News regularly features climate deniers rather than representatives who have sounded the alarm on the climate crisis. [vii]

The network has even gone so far as attempting to discredit reputable climate science and attacking climate scientists. Fox hosts have accused NASA of “fudging the numbers” on climate change and called the phenomenon of climate change something only “corrupt” scientists believe in.[viii]

Fox News passes off as a climate “expert” a person who has no climate science training. Scientists have called statements by Joe Bastardi – a meteorologist often featured to comment on climate change – as “completely wrong,” “simply ignorant” and “utter nonsense.” [ix]

Why Does it Matter?

With 2.2 million viewers, Fox News occupies the No. 1 prime-time spot for all of cable. In short, it has a big microphone and it is using it to perpetuate the stark partisan divide in climate change perceptions, as well as shape and polarize its audience’s views on the climate crisis.

Fox News is tarnishing and making a mockery of, well, broadcast news.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that bold and immediate action is necessary to avoid irreversible climate disruption. And while the Obama administration has taken some actions to advance our fight against the global crisis, the sale of climate denialism by networks like Fox News continue to obstruct any meaningful action to slow down this climate crisis.

What Can Fox Do?

Fox News leadership should use the recent scandal and shake-up at the network to reposition its views on climate disruption. In fact, 21 organizations are calling on Fox News to do just that. This is an opportunity to do what CEO Rupert Murdoch promised nearly a decade ago: engage “readers, viewers and customers on sustainability issues through partnerships and content of the highest caliber.”[x]

And an opportunity for FOX to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the climate solution.




[iv] Id.


[vi] Id.





Our country is still reeling in the aftermath of the greed-fueled contagion of the 2008 economic collapse and Wall Street getting caught in villainous behavior is daily news. The anger of the American public toward Big Banks that were bailed out while average citizens went under—institutions that continue to get away with mere slaps on the wrist to settle claims of severe wrongdoing— is the foundation of the current populist political surge. It’s not surprising that Hollywood wants to get in on the act, and they should be applauded.

oneheart-invite215The Academy Award-winning  film The Big Short spotlighted for the movie-going public the complex web of financial maneuverings that tumbled down like a house of cards, leaving millions without homes and millions more with empty nest eggs. “A-listers” Julia Roberts, George Clooney, and Jodie Foster have even embraced the “us-versus-Wall Street” theme in the recently-available-for-the-small-screen film, Money Monster. The plot focuses on the problems that cascade from an everyman feeling wronged by a high-speed trading firm, and a “glitch” that bottomed out the value of a stock. Without commenting on the quality of the film, it can be said with all conviction that such glitches are not fiction.

In May of 2010, there was a flash crash that brought the curtain down on a trillion dollars of market value in a matter of minutes. And, in October 2013, in an unexpected twist, the normally very steady U.S. Treasury bond market went on a wild ride that was eventually blamed partially on high-frequency trading, computer programs called algorithms that automatically buy and sell financial instruments in much less than a blink of an eye.

Why should we risk our market stability with such rampant speculation? Spoiler alert: we don’t have to!

Right on cue to tamping-down on undesirable market behavior is an idea associated with Nobel prize-winning economist James Tobin, who called for a corrective tax on speculative trading that would  “throw some sand in the wheels” of the market to slow it down. Dozens of countries already have these taxes in place and the U.S. had a tax on Wall Street taxes from 1914 through 1965. Public Citizen has long advocated for reinstating a tax on Wall Street trades to protect consumers.

Not a Hollywood blockbuster, but another recent film, The Same Heart, also chronicles the rise of the high-speed trading ‘bot. However, the problem toward which the documentary film’s lens is primarily pointed is the horrible injustice of childhood poverty. But, instead of showing only the negative—the unthinkable hurdles of hunger, disease, and violence that billions of children face worldwide—it focuses on a possible solution: taxing Wall Street trades. The Same Heart makes the ethical and economic case for the wealthiest among us, the financial elite who make millions and billions of dollars in profit from financial transactions, to fund programs that invest in the world’s youth.

On September 27, at 1 pm in the Capitol Visitor’s Center, Public Citizen, in coordination with Media Voices for Children, which produced the film, the Child Labor Coalition, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is hosting an event called “Investing in our Future, One Transaction at a Time,” a panel discussion and screening of an excerpt of The Same Heart. I will be center stage for a dialogue with U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), filmmaker Len Morris, and experts from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Communications Workers of America, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the National Consumers League. In addition to speaking about how the tens of billions in estimated yearly revenues from a Wall Street tax could benefit the next generation, I will outline how current legislative proposals to reinstate a tax on Wall Street trades to make markets less volatile and work better for average investors.

A fairer market does not have to be a celluloid dream. If we want to flip today’s script: the robbers being the banks themselves, bad guys costumed in pinstripes, never jail stripes, we need to take on Wall Street. The first step is making Wild West Wall Street stock market gamblers pay their fair share by taxing their trades at a fraction of a percent.

And, even if you’re not in DC to make the movie and panel event, you can still help set the scene for a legislative win. Please tell your U.S. Representative that you want her or him to be a hero and cosponsor the Putting Main Street FIRST (Finishing Irresponsible Reckless Speculative Trading) Act (HR 5745). If you’ve already done that, be a social media superhero and help spread the word about the Take on Wall Street fight by sharing this blog on Twitter with the hashtags #WallStTax or #TakeOnWallSt.

With your help, soon we will reach a critical consensus: no longer will we let the One Percent steal the show.

Earlier this month, The Guardian published an investigation into the network of politicians, donors, and groups that raised tens of millions of dollars to defend Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and several Wisconsin state senators who faced recall elections in 2011 and 2012. They also looked at conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, Jr., who was up for re-election in 2011.

american_corporate_flagIt is estimated that an astounding $137 million was spent on the recall races, with millions more spent on the Supreme Court race. The Guardian exposé, based on over 1500 pages of leaked emails and other documents, gives us a bird’s eye view into the dirty business of raising boatloads of cash from corporate special interests and the very rich.

This trove of leaked documents is particularly important because Wisconsin law does not require the disclosure of monies spent on “issue advocacy” ads that praise or criticize a candidate without explicitly calling on voters to vote for or against the candidate. Many groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ran “issue advocacy” ads in these races, and therefore their names do not appear in publicly available databases of elections spending in Wisconsin. The leaked documents offer the public a chance to peak behind the legal curtain that shields deep-pocketed special interest groups from having to disclose their electioneering activities.

ChamberWatch wanted to learn more about the role played by the Chamber in financing the deluge of ads that dominated the airwaves in the months leading up to these elections. So we reviewed the 1500 pages of leaked documents that The Guardian made available online.

We found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the Wisconsin state chamber, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, played major roles as outside spenders in these races, particularly in the Supreme Court race.

Tellingly, when Walker’s chief fundraising consultant laid out an initial blueprint for funding his recall election, she listed the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform as a major potential donor along with the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, major corporations, and CEOs of major corporations, among others.

The primary evidence that the Chamber spent money on behalf of Walker comes from an email sent by Chamber head of communications Tom Collamore to one of Walker’s campaign consultants. The email includes a Wall Street Journal article about a $2 million ad buy by the Wisconsin state chamber promoting Walker. (The total spent by the state chamber on the recall elections was at least $4.7 million). The consultant then forwards the email, writing “Tom is a good friend…we have had many conversations about Scott…they know the significance of this race and that is why they are so supportive…and will continue to be so.”

Unfortunately, none of the leaked documents indicate exactly how much money the Chamber spent on the governor’s race. However, we know that a PAC associated with the Republican Governors Association was one of the largest outside spenders in the governor’s race. We also know that the Chamber gave $1.25 million in 2012 to the RGA, making it the sixth largest donor to the group. Of course, we don’t know how much if any of this money was spent in Wisconsin.

The evidence of Chamber elections spending is even more clear cut with respect to the Supreme Court election. One of Walker’s top advisors writes that he assumes the Chamber is in for a minimum of $1.1 million for the Supreme Court race. A subsequent email from the same advisor mentions a Chamber ad buy of $1.5 million for the Supreme Court race. Judging by estimates of total spending it is a safe bet that the Chamber was one of the largest if not the largest spender on the Supreme Court race.

The leaked documents also reveal that at the same time the U.S. Chamber and Wisconsin state chamber were showering Walker and Prosser with money, the state chamber was also providing corporations including Altria, Walmart, Kimberly-Clark, Xcel Energy and AT&T access to Walker as well as lobbying him on unemployment insurance and workers compensation.

And therein lies the reason why the Chamber and the large corporations it represents were “so supportive” of Walker and Prosser and why they spent so much money bolstering their reelection campaigns. Walker and his conservative allies in the state legislature were receptive to lobbying by Big Business pushing an anti-worker agenda. They had just passed a major bill eviscerating worker rights and protections. And Prosser could be counted on to protect this legislation from any legal challenges. Without Walker, without a conservative majority in the state legislature, or without Prosser, not only would it have been possible to undo the damage done by this legislation, but Big Business would no longer have the opportunity to get additional items on its anti-worker wish list enacted into law and upheld by the courts.

The leaked Wisconsin documents paint a picture of a political system almost entirely reliant on—and beholden to—big money corporate donors. And the U.S. Chamber and its affiliates stand at the nexus of this unholy alliance between Big Business and the political class. Perhaps it’s time to admit the obvious: our democracy is now a corporatocracy.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen’s appearance in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday was a missed opportunity to advance an important discussion about nonprofit governance. Members of the committee from both parties chose to create a political spectacle rather than talk about real solutions for problems with the definition of political activity for tax-exempt organizations.

Republicans proceeded as though the hearing was a genuine impeachment hearing, while denying Commissioner Koskinen any kind of due process –including the rights to have counsel present and to call and cross-examine witnesses.

John Koskinen

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, courtesy of Brookings Institution/Flickr

On the other side of the aisle, many Democrats chose to question the Commissioner about Donald Trump’s unreleased tax returns and the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s alleged self-dealing. Some Democrats did defend the Commissioner and labeled the proceeding a “sham” and a “farce.”  Even though Koskinen made it evident early in the hearing that he could not comment on particular taxpayer situations, a number of Democrats asked again and again about thinly veiled hypotheticals relating to Trump’s tax situation.

It is understandable that Democrats would not ask Koskinen questions related to the impeachment attempt by the House Freedom Caucus, given that the impeachment is doomed to fail and is merely designed to make headlines. Democrats could have used the opportunity to show the American public that they are serious about creating clearer rules for tax-exempt organizations rather than respond to a political attack with a political attack of their own.

In fact, members of both parties could have used this as a chance to confront the dysfunction and disunity that has plagued Congress. Instead of asking the Commissioner questions he has already answered and accusing the Commissioner of nefarious acts of which the Treasury Department’s independent Inspector General and the Department of Justice have cleared him, members should have asked substantive questions on topics that can move the government forward.

For example, members of the committee could have used the opportunity to ask Koskinen about the negative effects that the current vague rules have on nonprofits – especially 501(c)(3) organizations. They could have asked about the effects of the Congressional prohibition on the IRS’s ability to engage in rulemaking activities for 501(c)(4)s. Or, they could have asked about how to improve the current tax regime for non-profit organizations moving forward.

Without clearer rules to define political activity, risk averse 501(c)(3)s will be forced to refrain from civic activities that should be permissible because they do not want to jeopardize their tax-exempt status. In addition, bad rules cloud the waters when it comes to responding to an attack on an organization’s core mission. When someone close to a political candidate compares refugees to skittles, how can a refugee-focused 501(c)(3) respond without violating the (c)(3) ban on political activity? There are nonpartisan ways to respond, but because the rules are so unclear, most would choose to remain silent rather than take any risk they could accidentally stray over the line.

The time has come to stop using the IRS to further partisan political goals and instead acknowledge the important nonpartisan role it plays in governing tax-exempt organizations and the critical responsibility it has in maintaining American democracy.

This article was originally published on The Hill.

Wells Fargo’s scandalous practice of secretly opening more than 2 million sham deposit and credit card accounts dragged on for at least five years.

How did Wells Fargo get away with it for so long?

stagecoach-5106_640A big part of the story: Wells Fargo contract provisions blocked consumers from suing the bank in court. It’s past time to prohibit the “ripoff clauses” that prevent consumers from enforcing their most basic legal rights.

Like most big banks and many other corporations, Wells Fargo buries ripoff clauses in the fine print of its customer contracts. These provisions, also known as “forced arbitration” clauses, prevent consumers from suing over wrongdoing in court and prohibit consumers from banding together in class actions. Instead, ripoff clauses force consumers to seek redress in private arbitration, on an individual basis.

So when lots of consumers have suffered small harms — as was the case with Wells Fargo — there’s nothing they can do. It’s generally not worth the time and money to bring a case individually, and there’s a disincentive to proceed in arbitration, where claims are decided by a private firm handpicked and paid by the corporation rather than a judge or jury. Effectively, banks and other corporations are free to rip off their consumers without fear of being held accountable in court.

The problem isn’t just that aggrieved consumers don’t have access to a remedy. Keeping cases out of court means abuses are kept out of the spotlight.

That’s exactly what happened with Wells Fargo, and why the abuses could go on so long.

Indeed, more than three years ago, a Wells Fargo customer named David Douglas sued in California, contending that the bank’s employees and branch managers “routinely use the account information, date of birth, and Social Security and taxpayer identification numbers … and existing bank customers’ money to open additional accounts.” Douglas alleged that branch managers opened at least eight accounts in his name and created fake business accounts under his name without his knowledge.

This case should have gone to court but was blocked by a ripoff clause. Douglas’s lawyers argued that an arbitration provision in a legitimate account agreement should not bar him from suing over a sham account he never agreed to open. However, citing recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the judge held that the ripoff clause in the original agreement blocked him from suing Wells Fargo.

In 2015, another Wells Fargo customer, Shahriar Jabbari, tried to file a class action against the bank, claiming that employees hid fees, refused to close accounts on request, and forged signatures and addresses. Wells Fargo publicly denied these allegations. Again, the judge ruled that the ripoff clause in the original account agreement forced any unresolved disagreement into arbitration, and Jabbari’s class action was kicked out of court.

Had these early cases been allowed to proceed, others almost certainly would have followed, and Wells Fargo may have ended these pervasive abuses years ago.

Instead, it took until last week for the practices to be halted, and then only thanks to the efforts of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the agency devised by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and adopted as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. State and federal regulators had notice of the problem at least as far back as 2013, when the Los Angeles Times first reported on Wells Fargo’s fraudulent accounts. Front-line Wells Fargo workers had drawn attention to the problem, too; in April 2015, at the bank’s annual shareholder meeting, Wells Fargo employees with the Committee for Better Banks submitted an 11,000-signature petition calling for an end to sales quotas that fueled fraud.

Private enforcement – individual lawsuits and class actions brought by harmed consumers — not only is a necessary complement to agency efforts, but it also often alerts agencies to the need for action.

Governmental agencies don’t have the resources to police every instance of fraud. And these agencies frequently face industry smears and congressional posturing that halts or slows their ability to act.

When consumers are blocked from suing, it takes longer for agencies to become aware of a problem and is much more difficult for them to gather evidence and build a case — particularly when companies use forced arbitration to keep victims silent.

The solution: Do away with ripoff clauses. The CFPB has proposed a rule that would end the worst ripoff clauses in the financial arena, restoring consumers’ right to join together in class actions to hold banks accountable for predatory behavior.

The big banks are trying to block the rule, but the Wells Fargo scandal shows exactly why the CFPB should prevail.

Weissman is president of Public Citizen. Donner is executive director of Americans for Financial Reform.

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.