Exxon Mobil is too big to punish, but BP is getting a spanking.
10 Corporations That Still Get New Gov't Contracts, Despite Alleged Misconduct
By Kate Sheppard
Mother Jones
Nov. 30, 2012
The EPA surprised quite a few people on Wednesday when it announced sanctions on BP related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster...
This has been a long-time coming for BP. As a ProPublica piece from May 2010 noted, the company was already in trouble before spill:
Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action. Until now, the company's executives and their lawyers have fended off such a penalty by promising that BP would change its ways.
But many companies with federal contracts have been cited for misconduct. Apparently you just have to be really, really bad—like, 26-people-dead, Gulf-ecosystem-destroyed, lying-to-Congress bad—in order to get barred like BP did. The government regularly blocks companies from getting new contracts; there were 5,838 suspensions, proposed debarments, and debarments in 2011, an increase over previous years, but most of them are much smaller companies.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) maintains a database of contractors that have been cited for misconduct, including environmental, labor, and financial legal violations. But as POGO points out, "very few large contractors have been suspended or debarred over the years." BP tops the list with 62 instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct since 1995, but here are the ten other big companies right behind BP that are still allowed to obtain government contracts:
Exxon Mobil, 59 instances of alleged misconduct
Lockheed Martin, 58 instances
Boeing Company, 46 instances
General Electric, 44 instances
Honeywell International, 41 instances
ChevronTexaco Corporation, 37 instances
Northrop Grumman, 35 instances
Fluor Corporation, 34 instances
Royal Dutch Shell PLC, 34 instances
GlaxoSmithKline, 33 instances
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Criminal Tax Penalties for ALEC? CMD's Investigation Provides Facts for Powerful New Complaint by Former IRS Official
Criminal Tax Penalties for ALEC? CMD's Investigation Provides Facts for Powerful New Complaint by Former IRS Official
by Brendan Fischer
PR Watch
July 9, 2012
This month, a former leader of the Internal Revenue Service filed a complaint that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has violated the terms of its nonprofit status by operating primarily for the private benefit of its corporate members, based on documents and research from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which manages PRWatch, ALECexposed, and SourceWatch. The complaint, which also alleges that ALEC misrepresented itself in tax filings, raises additional allegations beyond those in earlier IRS complaints filed by Common Cause.
"Astounding" Violations of IRS Law
ALEC "elevates commercial gain for a few over the well-being of society's less fortunate" through "an agenda largely crafted by the organization's corporate members," the complaint states (a pdf of the complaint is below). Marcus Owens, the former chief of the Service's nonprofit division, filed the complaint on behalf of Clergy VOICE, a group of Christian ministers in Ohio. "ALEC has deliberately and repeatedly failed to comply with some of the most fundamental federal tax requirements applicable to public charities," the complaint says. Owens is a nationally recognized expert and leader on nonprofit tax law and a member of the noted law firm Caplin & Drysdale.
ALEC is afforded a variety of benefits by virtue of its "charity" status -- not least of which is giving corporations a tax deduction for paying ALEC membership dues -- but in exchange for those benefits, ALEC is supposed to primarily serve public or charitable interests (rather than private interests) and engage in minimal lobbying.
"ALEC is doing an extraordinary amount of lobbying, but reporting to the IRS they are doing NO lobbying," Owens told CMD. "Even when North Dakota forced two of ALEC's attorneys to register as lobbyists, they still reported [on their IRS filings] they did no lobbying. That is astounding."
"I have never seen such a systematic and extensive operation . . . to sidestep disclosure and ethics rules in a way that really allows them to have an extraordinary impact," Owens said.
Corporate Control over Model Bills Give Private Benefit
In the complaint, Owens and Clergy VOICE allege that ALEC operates primarily for the benefit of its corporate members by offering "not only unprecedented access to state lawmakers -- the very individuals who introduce and support the state laws that positively impact the corporations' bottom lines -- but also the opportunity to draft those laws." The complaint references "model" bills like the asbestos liability act, which specifically shields ALEC member Crown Holdings from asbestos liability claims, and the Drug Liability Act, which benefits ALEC member pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer or Merck by protecting them from lawsuit when their products injure or kill (as CMD discussed when that model bill was introduced in Wisconsin).
ALEC is structured to give private benefit to its corporate members, the complaint states, with its operating procedures giving ALEC's "corporate donors authority to approve or veto every legislative and policy proposal developed by ALEC's Task Forces," and its bylaws giving "corporate members disproportionate authority to appoint and remove legislators from the Task Forces."
According to the complaint, "[t]his effectively ensures that the only model laws distributed to ALEC's Legislative Members and disseminated nationwide are those that have been co-drafted and subsequently blessed by ALEC's corporate donors."
"Further, the legislative proposals that clear this process appear to be motivated substantially, if not primarily, by the pecuniary interests of ALEC's corporate members."
The complaint also notes that ALEC's legislative board and most legislative members are Republicans -- and that most of ALEC's operations provide a private benefit to the Republican Party.
Scholarships Are "the Definition of a Bribe"
The site of the ALEC 2011 States & Nation Policy Summit in Scottsdale. Clergy VOICE also alleges that ALEC operates to benefit its legislative members through the "scholarship program" that allows corporations to pay for the flights, hotel rooms, meals, and entertainment of ALEC politicians. The meetings are ”held in luxury hotels, frequently in vacation-worthy destinations like San Diego, New Orleans and Scottsdale,” and scholarships fund “perks such as meals, recreational activities, and subsidized childcare for legislators and their families.” (CMD has previously described the scholarship scheme here.)
Additionally, “[m]eeting agendas include events like golf tournaments, open bar parties and baseball games — all subsidized directly or indirectly by ALEC’s corporate members,” the complaint says.
Despite this, ALEC has told the IRS that it provides no scholarships and funds no travel or entertainment expenses for elected officials...
by Brendan Fischer
PR Watch
July 9, 2012
This month, a former leader of the Internal Revenue Service filed a complaint that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has violated the terms of its nonprofit status by operating primarily for the private benefit of its corporate members, based on documents and research from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which manages PRWatch, ALECexposed, and SourceWatch. The complaint, which also alleges that ALEC misrepresented itself in tax filings, raises additional allegations beyond those in earlier IRS complaints filed by Common Cause.
"Astounding" Violations of IRS Law
ALEC "elevates commercial gain for a few over the well-being of society's less fortunate" through "an agenda largely crafted by the organization's corporate members," the complaint states (a pdf of the complaint is below). Marcus Owens, the former chief of the Service's nonprofit division, filed the complaint on behalf of Clergy VOICE, a group of Christian ministers in Ohio. "ALEC has deliberately and repeatedly failed to comply with some of the most fundamental federal tax requirements applicable to public charities," the complaint says. Owens is a nationally recognized expert and leader on nonprofit tax law and a member of the noted law firm Caplin & Drysdale.
ALEC is afforded a variety of benefits by virtue of its "charity" status -- not least of which is giving corporations a tax deduction for paying ALEC membership dues -- but in exchange for those benefits, ALEC is supposed to primarily serve public or charitable interests (rather than private interests) and engage in minimal lobbying.
"ALEC is doing an extraordinary amount of lobbying, but reporting to the IRS they are doing NO lobbying," Owens told CMD. "Even when North Dakota forced two of ALEC's attorneys to register as lobbyists, they still reported [on their IRS filings] they did no lobbying. That is astounding."
"I have never seen such a systematic and extensive operation . . . to sidestep disclosure and ethics rules in a way that really allows them to have an extraordinary impact," Owens said.
Corporate Control over Model Bills Give Private Benefit
In the complaint, Owens and Clergy VOICE allege that ALEC operates primarily for the benefit of its corporate members by offering "not only unprecedented access to state lawmakers -- the very individuals who introduce and support the state laws that positively impact the corporations' bottom lines -- but also the opportunity to draft those laws." The complaint references "model" bills like the asbestos liability act, which specifically shields ALEC member Crown Holdings from asbestos liability claims, and the Drug Liability Act, which benefits ALEC member pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer or Merck by protecting them from lawsuit when their products injure or kill (as CMD discussed when that model bill was introduced in Wisconsin).
ALEC is structured to give private benefit to its corporate members, the complaint states, with its operating procedures giving ALEC's "corporate donors authority to approve or veto every legislative and policy proposal developed by ALEC's Task Forces," and its bylaws giving "corporate members disproportionate authority to appoint and remove legislators from the Task Forces."
According to the complaint, "[t]his effectively ensures that the only model laws distributed to ALEC's Legislative Members and disseminated nationwide are those that have been co-drafted and subsequently blessed by ALEC's corporate donors."
"Further, the legislative proposals that clear this process appear to be motivated substantially, if not primarily, by the pecuniary interests of ALEC's corporate members."
The complaint also notes that ALEC's legislative board and most legislative members are Republicans -- and that most of ALEC's operations provide a private benefit to the Republican Party.
Scholarships Are "the Definition of a Bribe"
The site of the ALEC 2011 States & Nation Policy Summit in Scottsdale. Clergy VOICE also alleges that ALEC operates to benefit its legislative members through the "scholarship program" that allows corporations to pay for the flights, hotel rooms, meals, and entertainment of ALEC politicians. The meetings are ”held in luxury hotels, frequently in vacation-worthy destinations like San Diego, New Orleans and Scottsdale,” and scholarships fund “perks such as meals, recreational activities, and subsidized childcare for legislators and their families.” (CMD has previously described the scholarship scheme here.)
Additionally, “[m]eeting agendas include events like golf tournaments, open bar parties and baseball games — all subsidized directly or indirectly by ALEC’s corporate members,” the complaint says.
Despite this, ALEC has told the IRS that it provides no scholarships and funds no travel or entertainment expenses for elected officials...
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Mystery Bermuda-based company and other undisclosed Romney assets hint at larger wealth
Mystery Bermuda-based company and other undisclosed Romney assets hint at larger wealth
For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters
By Associated Press
July 3, 2012
WASHINGTON — For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose.
Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney’s state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning — suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.
The omissions were permitted by state and federal authorities overseeing Romney’s ethics filings, and he has never been cited for failing to disclose information about his money. But Romney’s limited disclosures deprive the public of an accurate depiction of his wealth and a clear understanding of how his assets are handled and taxed, according to experts in private equity, tax and campaign finance law.
Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney’s wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press. The Romneys’ ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney’s two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys’ 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.
The mystery surrounding Sankaty reinforces Romney’s history of keeping a tight rein on his public dealings, already documented by his use of private email and computer purges as Massachusetts governor and his refusal to disclose his top fundraisers. The Bermuda company had almost no assets, according to Romney’s 2010 tax returns. But such partnership stakes could still provide significant income for years to come, said tax experts, who added that the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to know for certain.
“We don’t know the big picture,” said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax code reforms during congressional testimony last year. “Most of these disclosure rules are designed for people who have passive ownership of stocks and bonds. But in this case, he continues to own management interests that fluctuate greatly in value long after his time with the company and even the end of his separation agreement. And the public has no clear idea where the money is coming from or when it will end.”
Named for a historic Massachusetts coastal lighthouse, Sankaty was part of a cluster of similarly named hedge funds run by Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded and led until 1999. The offshore company was used in Bain’s $1 billion takeover of Domino’s Pizza and other multimillion-dollar investment deals more than a decade ago.
Romney’s campaign declined to answer detailed questions from AP about Sankaty. Romney aides have said in the past that some disclosures were not required because those assets were valued by his financial advisers at less than $1,000 — below the minimum threshold under federal rules set by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. A financial snapshot of Sankaty in Romney’s 2010 tax returns showed the holding with almost no value at the time— with $10,000 in both assets and liabilities...
The implications of Romney’s Bain profit-sharing became clear last month when his trust reported that one rarely disclosed asset had posted a $1.9 million payout. The income was described as a “true-up” payment, catch-up income that made up for unpaid earnings owed to Romney as part of his Bain separation agreement.
Such sizable earnings are possible “depending on the terms of the agreement,” said tax law expert Michael Kosnitzky, an attorney at the New York firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. The Romney campaign acknowledged recently that it could not rule out more large future payments.
The use of offshore companies such as Sankaty is allowed under U.S. tax laws. They are typically set up as shell corporations by private equity and hedge funds to route investments from large foreign and institutional investors, such as large pension plans, into corporate takeovers. The money is used to provide equity and buy up debt. In turn, the investors gain U.S. tax advantages by passing their funds through the offshore “blocker” corporations, avoiding a high 35 percent tax on earnings that the Internal Revenue Service describes as “unrelated business income.”
Set up in Bermuda in 1997, Sankaty served as Romney’s partnership stake in Bain’s Sankaty group, which invests in bonds, bank loans and corporate debt instruments. That first wave of Sankaty funds managed more than $100 million in investments in the late 1990s and early 2000s, according to a corporate analyst familiar with the funds. The analyst insisted on anonymity because the analyst was not authorized to discuss the funds publicly...
For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters
By Associated Press
July 3, 2012
WASHINGTON — For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose.
Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney’s state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning — suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.
The omissions were permitted by state and federal authorities overseeing Romney’s ethics filings, and he has never been cited for failing to disclose information about his money. But Romney’s limited disclosures deprive the public of an accurate depiction of his wealth and a clear understanding of how his assets are handled and taxed, according to experts in private equity, tax and campaign finance law.
Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney’s wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press. The Romneys’ ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney’s two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys’ 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.
The mystery surrounding Sankaty reinforces Romney’s history of keeping a tight rein on his public dealings, already documented by his use of private email and computer purges as Massachusetts governor and his refusal to disclose his top fundraisers. The Bermuda company had almost no assets, according to Romney’s 2010 tax returns. But such partnership stakes could still provide significant income for years to come, said tax experts, who added that the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to know for certain.
“We don’t know the big picture,” said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax code reforms during congressional testimony last year. “Most of these disclosure rules are designed for people who have passive ownership of stocks and bonds. But in this case, he continues to own management interests that fluctuate greatly in value long after his time with the company and even the end of his separation agreement. And the public has no clear idea where the money is coming from or when it will end.”
Named for a historic Massachusetts coastal lighthouse, Sankaty was part of a cluster of similarly named hedge funds run by Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded and led until 1999. The offshore company was used in Bain’s $1 billion takeover of Domino’s Pizza and other multimillion-dollar investment deals more than a decade ago.
Romney’s campaign declined to answer detailed questions from AP about Sankaty. Romney aides have said in the past that some disclosures were not required because those assets were valued by his financial advisers at less than $1,000 — below the minimum threshold under federal rules set by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. A financial snapshot of Sankaty in Romney’s 2010 tax returns showed the holding with almost no value at the time— with $10,000 in both assets and liabilities...
The implications of Romney’s Bain profit-sharing became clear last month when his trust reported that one rarely disclosed asset had posted a $1.9 million payout. The income was described as a “true-up” payment, catch-up income that made up for unpaid earnings owed to Romney as part of his Bain separation agreement.
Such sizable earnings are possible “depending on the terms of the agreement,” said tax law expert Michael Kosnitzky, an attorney at the New York firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. The Romney campaign acknowledged recently that it could not rule out more large future payments.
The use of offshore companies such as Sankaty is allowed under U.S. tax laws. They are typically set up as shell corporations by private equity and hedge funds to route investments from large foreign and institutional investors, such as large pension plans, into corporate takeovers. The money is used to provide equity and buy up debt. In turn, the investors gain U.S. tax advantages by passing their funds through the offshore “blocker” corporations, avoiding a high 35 percent tax on earnings that the Internal Revenue Service describes as “unrelated business income.”
Set up in Bermuda in 1997, Sankaty served as Romney’s partnership stake in Bain’s Sankaty group, which invests in bonds, bank loans and corporate debt instruments. That first wave of Sankaty funds managed more than $100 million in investments in the late 1990s and early 2000s, according to a corporate analyst familiar with the funds. The analyst insisted on anonymity because the analyst was not authorized to discuss the funds publicly...
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Go tell it on the mountain: The Edge doesn't need five homes here
The U2 guitarist is lining up political muscle and environmentalist star power to support constructing his eco-friendly castles on a pristine ridge near Malibu. What's greener? Not building at all.
Go tell it on the mountain: The Edge doesn't need five homes here
By Steve Lopez
LA Times
December 23, 2009
Just so you know, it's not easy for me to refer to U2 guitarist David Evans as "The Edge." Sure, there was a time when I referred to myself as S. Lo. But I quickly realized that once you've gone gray, it's hard to get away with anything other than what's on the birth certificate.
And I can't keep a straight face when I tell you that the five eco-friendly castles Mr. Edge wants to carve into the top of a pristine ridge near Malibu already have names. There's "Clouds Rest" and "Panorama," "Shell House" and "Blue Clouds." And my personal favorite, "Leaves in the Wind."
The latter is also the name of a website (www.leavesinthewind.com) promoting the controversial project, which would sit high above the Malibu pier, with a sweeping, miles-long view of spectacular coastline. You'd think a guy from one of the greatest bands in history could come up with a name that was a bit, shall we say, edgier, for a rock 'n' roll compound.
The Malibu area has been buzzing since a video was added to The Edge's website in the last several weeks, perhaps in anticipation of an upcoming California Coastal Commission hearing on the proposal. Against a gag-inducing track of New Age music, with birds tweeting in the background, fawning proponents of The Edge's plans praise the project. His supporters include Bonny Reiss, Gov. Schwarzenegger's former senior advisor, and, more surprisingly, Mark Massara, head of the Sierra Club's Great Coastal Places Campaign.
"It's going to take those visionary leaders being associated with projects like these, that are going to show how to make the California coastline a model of sustainability," Massara says on the video, in which he all but encourages the Coastal Commission to embrace the proposal.
Clearly The Edge is lining up all the political muscle and environmentalist star power he possibly can. He's even got a well-connected PR and lobbying firm -- California Strategies -- backing him up.
And that combination of clout and slick marketing is part of what riles Malibu City Councilman Jefferson Wagner. Although the compound would be outside Malibu city limits, it would require major expansion of a road within the city. Wagner is not inclined to vote in favor, and he's not a fan of the website testimonial, which makes no mention of all the dust in the wind there'd be once the bulldozers take the mountain...
Lobbyists who worked on the Edge's project are urging legislators to approve a measure that could clear the way for his development, which the Coastal Commission rejected.
U2 guitarist may get a second chance at Malibu mansions
By Michael J. Mishak
Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2012
SACRAMENTO — The California Coastal Commission rejected a controversial proposal last year by U2 guitarist the Edge to build five mansions on a scenic bluff above Malibu, saying that it would scar a rugged ridgeline and harm sensitive habitat.
Now, some of the same powerful lobbyists and lawyers behind the musician's quashed development are working the halls of the Capitol to push a bill that could give the rock star another chance at his dream compound.
Environmentalists and state agencies say that if the legislation becomes law, it will undermine the commission's position on his project and also extend to the character and development of the entire California coast and to state public lands.
At issue is how government agencies determine property ownership and how they use the findings in deciding whether to approve development.
Currently, the Coastal Commission has discretion to approve projects in environmentally sensitive areas — and the size and nature of those developments depend on ownership. The agency is more inclined, for example, to turn down a developer seeking approval for a multi-home project than a property owner trying to build a single-family house.
Developers at times try to skirt the issue by claiming each homesite has a different owner. They shield the identities through formation of limited liability corporations.
In the case of the Edge, whose real name is David Evans, the agency denied his plans because it said he was attempting to bypass environmental rules and maximize development by submitting five separate applications, each under a different corporate name.
Under the bill, state agencies would have to accept as fact that the person holding the deed is the property owner. If the state sought to challenge true ownership, it would be held to the same evidentiary standards that apply in the court system. The Coastal Commission and others argue that the standard would hamstring public agencies because they have none of the court system's tools of discovery: subpoenas, depositions and sworn testimony.
Sarah Christie, legislative director for the Coastal Commission, said the result would be a chilling effect on public agencies' abilities to carry out their missions, giving any developers who game the system more clout and potentially leading to "more fragmented, inappropriate development" along the coast.
Environmentalists cast the bill as a power grab by developers and special interests, including Evans.
"The forces who want to maximize their profit above all else are seeking to rewrite the rules in such a way that ensures the state government has limited ability to oversee and to take care of our public trust resources," said Adam Keats, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Ben Hueso (D-Logan Heights), said he introduced the bill to rein in what he sees as an overzealous bureaucracy that uses arbitrary standards to block development, a notion shared by the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. Its purpose is not to advance the interests of the U2 guitarist, Hueso said.
Hueso, a former coastal commissioner, said the measure would end the commission's "very abusive strategy to prevent someone from developing even an environmentally friendly project." He said public agencies would still have the resources to investigate ownership.
"If we have every agency in California cherry picking projects they don't like, it's going to create an enormous problem in our ability to do business in California," he said.
The legislator said he got the idea for the bill from Paul Bauer, one of the lobbyists Evans hired last year to help him before the Coastal Commission.
Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, who also worked as a consultant on Evans' development, has lobbied the agency to support the legislation. In an email to the chairwoman of the commission last month, Nuñez said he was sharing his own view, not that of a client. "This bill would prohibit local agencies from discriminating against some by inserting their own interpretation of property ownership," he wrote...
Go tell it on the mountain: The Edge doesn't need five homes here
By Steve Lopez
LA Times
December 23, 2009
Just so you know, it's not easy for me to refer to U2 guitarist David Evans as "The Edge." Sure, there was a time when I referred to myself as S. Lo. But I quickly realized that once you've gone gray, it's hard to get away with anything other than what's on the birth certificate.
And I can't keep a straight face when I tell you that the five eco-friendly castles Mr. Edge wants to carve into the top of a pristine ridge near Malibu already have names. There's "Clouds Rest" and "Panorama," "Shell House" and "Blue Clouds." And my personal favorite, "Leaves in the Wind."
The latter is also the name of a website (www.leavesinthewind.com) promoting the controversial project, which would sit high above the Malibu pier, with a sweeping, miles-long view of spectacular coastline. You'd think a guy from one of the greatest bands in history could come up with a name that was a bit, shall we say, edgier, for a rock 'n' roll compound.
The Malibu area has been buzzing since a video was added to The Edge's website in the last several weeks, perhaps in anticipation of an upcoming California Coastal Commission hearing on the proposal. Against a gag-inducing track of New Age music, with birds tweeting in the background, fawning proponents of The Edge's plans praise the project. His supporters include Bonny Reiss, Gov. Schwarzenegger's former senior advisor, and, more surprisingly, Mark Massara, head of the Sierra Club's Great Coastal Places Campaign.
"It's going to take those visionary leaders being associated with projects like these, that are going to show how to make the California coastline a model of sustainability," Massara says on the video, in which he all but encourages the Coastal Commission to embrace the proposal.
Clearly The Edge is lining up all the political muscle and environmentalist star power he possibly can. He's even got a well-connected PR and lobbying firm -- California Strategies -- backing him up.
And that combination of clout and slick marketing is part of what riles Malibu City Councilman Jefferson Wagner. Although the compound would be outside Malibu city limits, it would require major expansion of a road within the city. Wagner is not inclined to vote in favor, and he's not a fan of the website testimonial, which makes no mention of all the dust in the wind there'd be once the bulldozers take the mountain...
Lobbyists who worked on the Edge's project are urging legislators to approve a measure that could clear the way for his development, which the Coastal Commission rejected.
U2 guitarist may get a second chance at Malibu mansions
By Michael J. Mishak
Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2012
SACRAMENTO — The California Coastal Commission rejected a controversial proposal last year by U2 guitarist the Edge to build five mansions on a scenic bluff above Malibu, saying that it would scar a rugged ridgeline and harm sensitive habitat.
Now, some of the same powerful lobbyists and lawyers behind the musician's quashed development are working the halls of the Capitol to push a bill that could give the rock star another chance at his dream compound.
Environmentalists and state agencies say that if the legislation becomes law, it will undermine the commission's position on his project and also extend to the character and development of the entire California coast and to state public lands.
At issue is how government agencies determine property ownership and how they use the findings in deciding whether to approve development.
Currently, the Coastal Commission has discretion to approve projects in environmentally sensitive areas — and the size and nature of those developments depend on ownership. The agency is more inclined, for example, to turn down a developer seeking approval for a multi-home project than a property owner trying to build a single-family house.
Developers at times try to skirt the issue by claiming each homesite has a different owner. They shield the identities through formation of limited liability corporations.
In the case of the Edge, whose real name is David Evans, the agency denied his plans because it said he was attempting to bypass environmental rules and maximize development by submitting five separate applications, each under a different corporate name.
Under the bill, state agencies would have to accept as fact that the person holding the deed is the property owner. If the state sought to challenge true ownership, it would be held to the same evidentiary standards that apply in the court system. The Coastal Commission and others argue that the standard would hamstring public agencies because they have none of the court system's tools of discovery: subpoenas, depositions and sworn testimony.
Sarah Christie, legislative director for the Coastal Commission, said the result would be a chilling effect on public agencies' abilities to carry out their missions, giving any developers who game the system more clout and potentially leading to "more fragmented, inappropriate development" along the coast.
Environmentalists cast the bill as a power grab by developers and special interests, including Evans.
"The forces who want to maximize their profit above all else are seeking to rewrite the rules in such a way that ensures the state government has limited ability to oversee and to take care of our public trust resources," said Adam Keats, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Ben Hueso (D-Logan Heights), said he introduced the bill to rein in what he sees as an overzealous bureaucracy that uses arbitrary standards to block development, a notion shared by the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. Its purpose is not to advance the interests of the U2 guitarist, Hueso said.
Hueso, a former coastal commissioner, said the measure would end the commission's "very abusive strategy to prevent someone from developing even an environmentally friendly project." He said public agencies would still have the resources to investigate ownership.
"If we have every agency in California cherry picking projects they don't like, it's going to create an enormous problem in our ability to do business in California," he said.
The legislator said he got the idea for the bill from Paul Bauer, one of the lobbyists Evans hired last year to help him before the Coastal Commission.
Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, who also worked as a consultant on Evans' development, has lobbied the agency to support the legislation. In an email to the chairwoman of the commission last month, Nuñez said he was sharing his own view, not that of a client. "This bill would prohibit local agencies from discriminating against some by inserting their own interpretation of property ownership," he wrote...
Sunday, March 11, 2012
San Diego lawmakers received overseas trips
Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, went to the Fairmont Kea Lani resort in Maui for a week. The $2,415 junket was courtesy of the California Independent Voter Project, a San Diego nonprofit with funding from oil companies, utilities, pharmaceutical companies and a cigarette maker, according to the newspaper.
...Assemblyman Marty Block, D-San Diego, took a $10,735 Italy trip paid for by the California Foundation on the Environment and Economy, a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups. The trip included plant tours and meetings on energy issues, from solar power to smart meters.
Block also went on a $3,883 trip to Israel sponsored by Faith2Green, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit made up of faith-based organizations interested in environmental issues.
...Not all the trips had big budgets. Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, reported accepting a $219 gift of lodging and meals from the California Independent Petroleum Association as part of a symposium.
Report: SD lawmakers received overseas trips
Associated Press
March 11, 2012
Several San Diego County legislators received all-expenses-paid trips last year to Hawaii, Mexico, Israel and Italy _ renewing calls from critics that state gift-giving rules should be tightened.
Disclosure reports show the treks, bundled with meetings and plant tours, were sponsored by nonprofits that receive contributions from influence peddlers with a stake in legislation and the budget, according to an investigation by UT San Diego (http://bit.ly/ApmvwP) published Sunday.
Representatives from the corporations, utilities, labor unions and environmental groups often joined the excursions, giving them access to lawmakers, the newspaper said.
State law limits the value of gifts. But travel, if funded by a nonprofit, can be accepted as long as lawmakers participate in a meaningful way _ by giving a speech or sitting on a panel, for example.
California Common Cause, a government accountability group, says it's a loophole that should be closed. The group has lobbied for tightening gift-giving rules and providing full disclosure of who is contributing how much to the nonprofit group listed as the trip's sponsor.
"This is another way to get money into politics," Phillip Ung, policy director of California Common Cause, told UT San Diego.
The newspaper cited 10 lawmakers who reported accepting trips in 2011. Among them was Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who took a $5,866 trek to Israel to discuss homeland security and Iran. It was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles...
...Assemblyman Marty Block, D-San Diego, took a $10,735 Italy trip paid for by the California Foundation on the Environment and Economy, a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups. The trip included plant tours and meetings on energy issues, from solar power to smart meters.
Block also went on a $3,883 trip to Israel sponsored by Faith2Green, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit made up of faith-based organizations interested in environmental issues.
...Not all the trips had big budgets. Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, reported accepting a $219 gift of lodging and meals from the California Independent Petroleum Association as part of a symposium.
Report: SD lawmakers received overseas trips
Associated Press
March 11, 2012
Several San Diego County legislators received all-expenses-paid trips last year to Hawaii, Mexico, Israel and Italy _ renewing calls from critics that state gift-giving rules should be tightened.
Disclosure reports show the treks, bundled with meetings and plant tours, were sponsored by nonprofits that receive contributions from influence peddlers with a stake in legislation and the budget, according to an investigation by UT San Diego (http://bit.ly/ApmvwP) published Sunday.
Representatives from the corporations, utilities, labor unions and environmental groups often joined the excursions, giving them access to lawmakers, the newspaper said.
State law limits the value of gifts. But travel, if funded by a nonprofit, can be accepted as long as lawmakers participate in a meaningful way _ by giving a speech or sitting on a panel, for example.
California Common Cause, a government accountability group, says it's a loophole that should be closed. The group has lobbied for tightening gift-giving rules and providing full disclosure of who is contributing how much to the nonprofit group listed as the trip's sponsor.
"This is another way to get money into politics," Phillip Ung, policy director of California Common Cause, told UT San Diego.
The newspaper cited 10 lawmakers who reported accepting trips in 2011. Among them was Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who took a $5,866 trek to Israel to discuss homeland security and Iran. It was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles...
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
State Assembly Bill Seeks to Disclose Political Ad Donors
State Assembly Bill Seeks to Disclose Political Ad Donors
AB 1148, the California Disclose Act, goes before the state Assembly Tuesday.
Hollywood Patch
Jan. 31, 2012
Public interest groups are urging citizens to back a bill up for a vote Tuesday in the California Assembly that would require the disclosure of large donors to political ads seen by voters across the state.
Under AB 1148, also known as the California Disclose Act, the three largest donors to political advertising on TV and radio as well as those in mailers and Web sites would need to be named.
"This would be a huge win for democracy in California, allowing citizens to give proper weight to the different messages they hear and make informed decisions at the ballot box," said MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money in politics, in an email message to supporters.
Other organizations that have registered their support of the bill include the California National Organization for Women, the California League of Women Voters, the Planning and Conservation League and the California Clean Money Campaign (which is sponsoring the bill), among others.
The California Chamber of Commerce has announced its opposition, saying the bill would place "significant and onerous changes" on the process and hurt protected speech. The Chamber's opposition dims the bill's prospects, the San Jose Mercury-News stated. The California Broadcasters Association also opposes the bill.
AB 1148, the California Disclose Act, goes before the state Assembly Tuesday.
Hollywood Patch
Jan. 31, 2012
Public interest groups are urging citizens to back a bill up for a vote Tuesday in the California Assembly that would require the disclosure of large donors to political ads seen by voters across the state.
Under AB 1148, also known as the California Disclose Act, the three largest donors to political advertising on TV and radio as well as those in mailers and Web sites would need to be named.
"This would be a huge win for democracy in California, allowing citizens to give proper weight to the different messages they hear and make informed decisions at the ballot box," said MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money in politics, in an email message to supporters.
Other organizations that have registered their support of the bill include the California National Organization for Women, the California League of Women Voters, the Planning and Conservation League and the California Clean Money Campaign (which is sponsoring the bill), among others.
The California Chamber of Commerce has announced its opposition, saying the bill would place "significant and onerous changes" on the process and hurt protected speech. The Chamber's opposition dims the bill's prospects, the San Jose Mercury-News stated. The California Broadcasters Association also opposes the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)