The challenge of bringing transparency to an American Corporatocracy

American activists Sheila Krumholz and Danielle Brian talk about the challenges they face as heads of independent watchdog NGOs in the US

No 752 Posted by fw, May 21, 2013

“I think that the most important thing for people to remember is that they can do something about it. I worry that people become despondent and walk away from government. I think that’s our biggest danger. Because in the end as we’ve talked about how industries will have endless lawyers and money to pursue lobbying. But they don’t have the numbers of people. Our side has the numbers of people. And if we can just remind people that getting engaged still is what’s going to put pressure on the public figures who don’t want to be embarrassed. Media matters. Bad press matters. Going to town halls and having people yell at you for doing something corrupt matters. And that’s what we need to remember to empower people to take action.” —Danielle Brian

corporatocracy — Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in his book The Price of Civilization. He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts; the large U.S. military establishment after World War II; big corporate money financing election campaigns; and globalization tilting the balance away from workers. (Source: Corporatocracy, Wikipedia).

Bill Moyers is joined by the heads of two independent watchdog groups keeping an eye on government as well as on powerful interests seeking to influence it. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and OpenSecrets.org, and Danielle Brian, who runs the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), talk about the importance of transparency to our democracy, and their efforts to scrutinize who’s giving money, who’s receiving it, and most importantly, what’s expected in return.

To watch the original broadcast and access the complete transcript, visit Moyers’ website by clicking on the following link. Or watch the 20:31-minute embedded version below and read an abridged version of the transcript, featuring added subheadings, text highlighting and hyperlinks.

Sheila Krumholz and Danielle Brian on How Money Rules Washington, Moyers & Company, May 17, 2013

ABRIDGED TRANSCRIPT

[Introduction by Bill Moyers] – So what does it say about the state of democracy when public health is sacrificed to private profits because our political system has been bought out from under us? No two people are better qualified to answer that question than my next guests.

Now, the two of you have collectively been at this work of public watchdogs for more than 40 years. What have you learned in all that time about how money works?

In US, money spent on lobbying buys influence. Rising payoffs are now the norm

SHEILA – Money buys outcomes. It’s not that money is given as a quid pro quo to purchase a vote. But, well-placed contribution, money spent on lobbying, well-placed former aids now working to lobby are all assets that can be used by private interests to influence policy.

Every cycle, cycle after cycle, the money climbs inexorably up. So it has more than tripled in just the last decade in terms of all told — money going to candidates, political action committees and parties, and also the lobbying and now this secret dark money which is going to newly energized, newly formed political nonprofits that are actively trying to shape electoral outcomes.

Revolving door as senior bureaucrats exit government to enter corporations and vice versa

DANIELLE — Oh, there’s no question that it’s become the norm. And part of the problem with that is that people are less and less outraged. They get sort of used to it, journalists as well. And so I do think that what Sheila’s pointing to in addition to the campaign contributions and lobbying, which people think of when they think of money affecting government, it is also that revolving door that goes on where jobs, where people are leaving the federal government either from the Congress or the agencies and going to the industries that they had been overseeing or vice versa where they are leaving those industries and coming into the federal government.

These are the kinds of things that are really affecting policies. And then you have those same lobbyists who are dealing with legislation who are in the agency level who are also affecting how rulemakings, which is really some of the details that matter most. When a law is passed you then have to get down to the details, or the agency has to figure out exactly what the rules will be that implement that law. So that is one way that rulemakings are established. Sometimes an agency will just establish what new regulations will be without legislation. And either way, those same lobbyists are dealing at the agency level to make sure that their interests are protected.

As long as it’s legal no one questions the morality or ethics of corporate lobbying

SHEILA – It means that organizations — and mostly we’re talking about corporations — understand that Washington is often standing in the way of bigger profits for them. And so they see this as a perfectly legal, entirely common way for their companies to shape policy legislation, even regulation coming out of Washington that will ameliorate the damage and ultimately enhance their ability to turn a profit.

And so private interests if they are not successful in achieving their legislative agenda in Congress have other opportunities, many bites at the apple, to try to water down regulations that they see as onerous or to otherwise tweak laws as they are actually being implemented by the agencies.

Look at this headline: After a Powerful Lobbyist Intervenes, EPA Reverses Stance on Polluting Texas County’s Water. That’s a story from the news organizations ProPublica reporting that a big energy company wants permission from Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, for a large-scale mining project in Texas that would pollute a pristine supply of drinking water.

Got a problem? No problem! Cut a deal with Democrat fundraiser and fixer Heather Podesta

So the EPA says no, can’t have it. The big company hires Heather Podesta who’s a big time lobbyist, a big time fundraiser for Democrats who was married at the time to another big Washington Democratic fixer named Tony Podesta, who used to be president of the liberal organization People for the American Way.

Through their connections these two have become the king and queen of influence peddling. Lo and behold, some months after the industry hires Heather Podesta, EPA reverses itself and the company gets an exemption and is allowed to pollute the aquifer. To hell with the public health. This is routine, isn’t it?

Uneven playing field because Big Money has deep pockets that citizen activist organizations can’t match

DANIELLE — And it’s exactly what you’re talking about with the pay to play. So it’s, in this case you have companies that have the money and the resources to hire the lobbyists or the lawyers who will go to battle for their clients endlessly. I mean, those of us who are working on the other side in the public interest realize that when we have our wins which we get industry is going to be there and they’re going to keep going and fighting because they have those endless resources to keep battling back.

Difficult for activist watchdogs to know what’s going on inside a murky payoff system with revolving doors and reverse revolving doors

It’s the question of who is paying those influencers, who is behind that which is often not transparent and part of what we really think is essential is to make these communications even at the agency level. For example, if we could get visitors logs, many of the agencies track electronically if we’re going to visit an agency you’re listed. Those logs are not public. If we could get a better sense of, who are these people who are coming through the door to meet with the people for example at the EPA, we would have a better sense of what was going on.

SHEILA – And that’s especially important because we do know that there are over 12,000 registered lobbyists advocating on behalf of their clients in Washington. And we can see who they are, whether they’ve already spun through revolving door coming from Capitol Hill or elsewhere in government to advocate on behalf of these paying clients and how much they’re being paid. But we also need to see those senior advisors, others who are not technically registered as lobbyists but are in fact doing much the same work, advocating on behalf of a paying private client.

Unfortunately the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which governs disclosure of lobbying activity does not mandate that lobbyists disclose whom they’re meeting with. So they only say, “We lobbied the House of Representatives, or we lobbied the Senate,” which is ridiculous. That doesn’t provide us with a roadmap to exactly who their targets are in Congress

DANIELLE — It’s really I think the revolving door is maybe the most important corrupting element of in Washington because of — you have what we call, in this case that’s a reverse revolving door, right. But either way what you’ve got is people who are coming to the government or to be in public service with an incentive coming from their prior employer in this case.

You know, you’re not forgetting your friends who just gave you a multibillion or a multimillion dollar deal. Or you have people who are in the public service who are anticipating their next step, you know, their public service is essentially a stepping stone in their résumé to make more money. I don’t want that kind of person in my government. I would rather see that we have policies that really slow down the assumption that the reason you’re in government is to help go make money for yourself and for your next business afterwards.

Government loses expertise when public servants exit through the revolving door to join the lobbyists

SHEILA – It’s also damaging because it used to be, I think, that one could aspire to be a senior congressional advisor and that would be the pinnacle of your career, that would be a real achievement. Now young staffers are looking to trade on their investment in public service to leave work on Capitol Hill to go work on K Street for much more lucrative jobs very quickly. They’re not investing that time in public service. So I think that has had a damaging effect and means that the lobbyists are the ones that have the expertise. We’re losing expertise that’s not being developed on Congress, on Capitol Hill, it’s the seat of that is in some cases in K Street.

I think that is a large part of the cynicism that’s developed around government. People don’t see it as an honorable profession because the money is playing such an important role. Across the board from left to right people, Americans believe that government has been purchased, that it’s been corrupted by the money.

Recently five Congresspeople pocketed tens of thousands of dollars from private prison corporations

DANIELLE — You know what I found really shocking about the private prison industry is that recently you know, POGO tracks the top government contractors and their misconduct because the government hasn’t until recently actually done that which is shocking in itself. But only in the last couple of years suddenly two of the top government contractors are private prison corporations. That was pretty shocking to me.

And this is happening at a time where we see that there’s all kinds of legislation that is moving in Congress, that is criminalizing at a federal level, especially when it comes to immigration. We are very fascinated by that nexus. And I think it’s really terrifying. It raises the point that we haven’t touched on yet in terms of money in policy which is how much of what used to be done conducted by the federal government, by federal employees has been privatized to government contractors.

And that’s a whole separate way that money is influencing policy where entire agencies are essentially relying on employees that are private sector employees with private sector interests. And they are in many cases really pushing the agenda of those agencies.

Activists’ biggest problem is that the people become so cynical they simply ignore what’s going on

DANIELLE — Well, people need to see it, but then they need to do something about it. And I think that the most important thing for people to remember is that they can do something about it. I worry that people become despondent and walk away from government. I think that’s our biggest danger. Because in the end as we’ve talked about how industries will have endless lawyers and money to pursue lobbying. But they don’t have the numbers of people. Our side has the numbers of people. And if we can just remind people that getting engaged still is what’s going to put pressure on the public figures who don’t want to be embarrassed. Media matters. Bad press matters. Going to town halls and having people yell at you for doing something corrupt matters. And that’s what we need to remember to empower people to take action.

How can ordinary citizens help?

SHEILA – There are organizations like ours which are both credible, offering credible information, non-partisan information through which you can be informed and servicing opportunities to get involved, to take action on specific issues that are happening now

DANIELLE — I think that’s the key is those specific moments of time where it really will matter. And so we have at our website, at pogo.org we have a signup list for people who are joining what we’re calling our good government army of people who really — are willing to join us in being nerdy sometimes and saying “okay, now is the time.” And we get not just the one person, but the one person times 10,000 making a point, the people in that agency will say, “Wow, I didn’t know anyone other than Heather Podesta was looking.”

SHEILA – And whether it’s agency staff or whether it’s members of Congress, they’re not going to risk the liability of being seen as allied with the moneyed interests against the public interests, particularly for elected officials. They know what side their bread is buttered on and it’s the voters who hold, kind of the cards here. We need to make sure that they [members of Congress and their staff] understand that we [watchdogs and citizens] are paying attention. Because it’s those secret deals that are most powerful. When we can expose the money and the players we help neutralize their impact.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

How to help those in need of help — two leading women activists tell their stories

U.S. activists Rachel LaForest and Madeline Janis share their lessons from the frontlines

No 748 Posted by fw, May 16, 2013

“[Personal stories put] a face to the organizing that happens on the ground. It makes very real the people and the material conditions that they’re going through. It introduces neighbors to each other. It establishes trust. It’s something that really starts to build the power and a collective voice of a community, in a way that facts and figures and being able to put up front statistics just doesn’t get to.”Rachel LaForest

Economic equality advocates Rachel LaForest, executive director of Right to the City, and Madeline Janis, co-founder and national policy director of Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LANNE), discuss with Bill how social action can change both policy and lives. Janis led the fight for a living wage in Los Angeles; LaForest fights for fair and affordable housing across the country.

To watch the original broadcast and access the complete transcript, visit Moyers’ website by clicking on the following link. Or watch the 19-minute embedded version below and read an abridged version of the transcript, featuring added subheadings.

Rachel LaForest and Madeline Janis on Fighting for Fairness, Moyers & Company, May 10, 2013

ABRIDGED TRANSCRIPT

[Introduction by Bill Moyers] – With me are two women from opposite sides of the country who are leading the way.

Madeline Janis is co-founder and national policy director of LAANE, the “Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy.” The organization was created after the L.A. riots of 1992 and has helped lift tens of thousands of people from poverty, creating, quote, “good jobs, thriving communities and a healthy environment.” Madeline Janis led the campaign to pass a living wage ordinance in Los Angeles, she worked with that city’s Community Redevelopment Agency and has advised community organizations and unions all over America.

Here in New York, Rachel LaForest is executive director of the organization, “Right to the City.” Now in 11 states, it is dedicated to the principle that urban dwellers, especially the disenfranchised, have a right to shape and design the place where they live. Rachel LaForest was a student activist, worked in organized labor and at “Jobs with Justice,” where she coordinated a successful effort that raised the New York State minimum wage. Welcome to you both.

To lift people out of poverty start with their real-life concerns, not with abstractions

JANIS – I think that, very, very true that we need story strategy, especially strategy and structure. Those things really speak to the idea of a comprehensive, a smart campaign as well as having a grassroots base. And thinking through smartly what we want to win and all of that. But I would say that I think it’s more than a voice.

You have a struggling housekeeper in a hotel who cleans 25 rooms in a day and can barely make it and barely puts food on the table. The idea of her being able to fight for better working conditions, a union in her hotel, a living wage, that’s going to move her a lot more than just the theory of being able to have a voice in her democracy.

Although, when she finds her voice, it’s just the most incredible, empowering thing. And it’s overpowering when she stands up before a city council, or she stands up before a press and tells her story. So the things come together in a really amazing way.

Personal stories imbue the disenfranchised with motivation and courage

LAFOREST – [Stories] put a face to the organizing that happens on the ground. It makes very real the people and the material conditions that they’re going through. It introduces neighbors to each other. It establishes trust. It’s something that really starts to build the power and a collective voice of a community, in a way that facts and figures and being able to put up front statistics just doesn’t get to.

Right to the City has a national campaign around affordable housing called the Homes For All Campaign. And we could inundate, you know, our constituencies or a broader audience with the facts and figures that show that millions of people are on waiting lists for affordable housing. Millions of Americans are homeless. Millions of people have been foreclosed out of their homes over the last five, six years.

But rather than put out the figures, which I could read over my coffee in the newspaper and say, “This is horrible,” but rather than do just that, we are telling stories about the individuals who are living through these experiences. So, we’ve got Mark Harris in Atlanta who’s connected to an organization, Occupy our Homes Atlanta, which is a manifestation from the Occupy movement. He’s a veteran, has been evicted from his home and is fighting, cannot find affordable housing in the city of Atlanta to be able to stay. And so, telling his story puts an actual human being behind the idea.

Allows people to see him, to see Roline Burgison, who’s another one of our members from Providence, Rhode Island, who is paying 70 percent of her income to rent. So, what are the choices that she has to make around the quality of food that she’s able to put on the food for her children, where she can send her kids to school, if she can send her kids to school. How she’s able to get back and forth to work. Knowing these people, understanding them, is the best way to be able to make those linkages.

Start with stories, follow with organizing, and save facts and figures for decision makers

JANIS – And we have to be really thoughtful and we have to recognize that it’s a long haul. So we have to have, we have to organize. That’s the number one. We have to have that housekeeper, we have to have that veteran. We have to have those people coming together and organizing. But we also have to have the facts and figures and we have to put them out in a way that’s smart and that is right out there, in front of the decision makers.

Involvement in politics is fundamental

JANIS – And, by the way, we have to take control of our government, which means we have to be involved in politics. And then we have to put that all together with our stories and the communication.

How the campaign for a living wage for hotel workers in Long Beach, CA was won

JANIS – So, Long Beach is the second largest city in L.A. County. And we organized for two years in that city to win a living wage for all hotel workers — a living wage and five paid sick days. And we decided that we were going to do something differently there. We were going to do something the same in that the hotel workers themselves are telling their story, they’re organizing. But we decided to organize small businesses. So we went out and we organized 130 small businesses to be part of a “buy local” campaign.

Our polling showed that people recognized that the hotel workers who live in Long Beach — and there’re a lot of them — don’t have enough money to spend in their local stores, because they’re not making enough money. And so, and these hotels have been beneficiaries of big subsidies from the city and the government. And therefore, they should be able to pay a living wage to their workers.

So our argument was — and the small business people made that argument themselves; they were strong advocates — “We want more customers. We want these hotel workers to be able to buy our clothes and our food.” And so we had “buy local” signs everywhere. And then the most incredible thing was we won by 63 percent.

The political side of the living wage campaign

JANIS – And we kept seeing this, something that we thought was wrong. We had to be in an Alice in Wonderland story or something. We would see a Romney for President sign and a pro-Tea Party for Congress and Yes on the Living Wage, all on the same lawn. And that’s because the idea of a living wage for people and their neighbors to be able to spend money in local stores resonated. People were so incredibly energized about winning. And then January 1st 2,000 people and their families got this enormous raise and paid sick days. So then we organized the State of the City for Long Beach. And, you know, we had overflow crowds from every neighborhood.

We called it a State of the City — People’s State of the City. And we had hundreds of people. Every single person running for office, every person currently in office in Long Beach all came. And we were able to articulate this broader agenda, with all of the things that regular people care about. But it came off of the win, the fact that you, people said, “Wow, 63 percent of the people are with us.”

LaForest’s story-based strategy with homeowners facing foreclosure

LAFOREST – So there is actually this brilliant organization that moves and does training for organizations in this country called The Center for Story-Based Strategy. And their premise is…that values are communicated through meaning — not necessarily through facts — but giving meaning to a set of values and being able to tell a story.

And so, we’ve got a national campaign around housing that we use foreclosure, homeowners who are facing foreclosure, homeless families and homeless individuals, renters and public housing residents for the first time really coming together to talk about how each of their stories influences each other and what each of their struggles has, in terms of interconnectedness and how there’s influence. And so, we brought them through training with the Center for Story Based Strategy to really look at what the dominant narrative is around housing in this country.

Well, for a long time it’s been that your ticket to the American dream, or demonstrating that you’ve arrived within the American dream, that a piece of that is home ownership. And that owning a home meant that you have claimed a stake and you are now a part of the fabric of this country. So what did that mean for people who were homeless, who were renters, who were part of public housing?

So it created a huge chasm. And so, we’re challenging the assumption that home ownership means the American dream. But that rather that access to equitable housing and housing that is affordable and allows for people to participate in their communities is actually what the American Dream is.

The story of the new economy — cooperativization

JANIS – The new story of the economy is that everybody deserves a good job and a decent life. And that our government, our democracy has the tools to ensure that. And that responsible companies are also welcome. And companies that are willing to work in partnership with community and balance their interests. We want them to do well, but with a community interest, we’ll be more successful and we’ll have greater prosperity for everyone.

LAFOREST – I actually think that the push for a new economy is also around innovation. And I think that a new economy actually challenges that assumption that we all have, that the market has the answers. And you can look around the world and even places here in this country, where there are innovative, economic models that are cooperative models, like cooperative food systems, cooperative labor banks, cooperative housing systems. Where communities actually have a certain level of ownership. I think that’s a really important component of what we mean when we start to talk about a new American economy.

JANIS – We believe in winning, we recognize that we’re not going to win our whole dream. We’re not going to win our whole agenda immediately. We’re going to move step by step and hopefully we’re going to convert a lot of good businesses along the way to be our partners.

You have to model a culture that people want to emulate

LAFOREST – Uh-huh. And change the culture. You know, you set a precedent and so then you model a culture that people want to emulate. I think for us, rather than a corporation because the last several years have really been working on consolidating a comprehensive housing campaign, we’ve been looking at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, essentially, a bank, if you will, holding most of the mortgages in this country.

And seeing many, many properties tank and go into foreclosure. And so, at the pinnacle of this fight around the foreclosure crisis, there’s been a real battle around principal reduction, which is reducing the cost of a home to its current market value, as opposed to expecting the homeowner to pay what it was when they took out their mortgage. Which would allow millions of people to say in their homes.

Politics again – fighting to rid government of officials opposed to solutions

LAFOREST – In addition to that there’s an obligation to fund the National Housing Trust Fund, which would create affordable housing throughout the country. So we’ve got Ed DeMarco, who’s been the acting director of the FHFA, the Federal Housing and Finance Administration, who has refused to even consider looking at principal reduction or the funding of the National Housing Trust Fund as a solution. And the win has been Obama announced last week that he’s going to replace this man.

We’ve been fighting four plus years. Some of our groups knew that this was a problem and were targeting him from five or six years ago. And it really started to develop as the foreclosure crisis hit the forefront of the headlines that it pulled in new local and national entities into this fight. And now this man is going to be replaced. And we are in the mix of discussing the kind of person that needs to be running the Federal Housing and Finance Administration. And it took years. And lots of hard organizing on the ground.

People’s stories about small victories kept activists going

LAFOREST – People’s stories — people’s joys and inspiration around small victories that happen on the ground. So in Springfield, Massachusetts. Springfield No One Leaves, a very small organization there, got an ordinance passed that said that any mortgage holder that is able to foreclose a family out of their home has to pay a $10,000 bond to upkeep the property so that the entire community is not blighted and so that people’s spirits are not killed.

In Los Angeles SAJE, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy just won a comprehensive benefit, a community benefit agreement with the University of Southern California, who wants to expand out and build student housing. And they were granted $20 million in creating affordable housing, along with the student housing, and a guarantee to hire 30 percent of those jobs locally.

So those small victories aggregate to this larger sort of beating heart and people feeling deeply inspired by each other. But it takes work. So a role for Right to the City Alliance is to bring those organizations together as often as possible, to talk about those victories and the models and the challenges so that there is reciprocal inspiration happening across the country.

Ways for ordinary citizens to help – join or fund local activist organizations and spread the word

JANIS – There are great organizations in every part of this country. And, probably not well known. So people can be involved in multiple ways. They can be involved in organizing around a living wage campaign or around a housing rights campaign. Or a campaign that’s, you know, that’s environmental and, or building sustainable communities and good jobs.

There are… you can be involved in your church. And, you know, in churches and synagogues there are a lot of religious leaders of faith who are connecting to groups like, for example, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. In California there’re chapters all over. The National Interfaith Committee.

Be involved in your union. A lot of people still belong to unions in this country. But unions are made up of human beings. And those unions are not going to become progressive, stalwart leaders in this country until you and all of your coworkers take responsibility for your union. And become involved and fight for a really broader progressive agenda.

There’re so many ways to become involved. And, you know, you just have your pick of them. And I would say also contribute your funding, your own personal money. You know, fifty dollars here, one hundred dollars there from everybody really adds up.

LAFOREST – Two dollars, five dollars really adds up. And I would add that there are even smaller and more manageable things that people can do. Educate your family. Really be open to learning about what is the vehicle for your values that really gets your values expressed? You know, be open to talking to your children around, about immigration and what that fight is about. About education and what it means, what the fight looks like to make sure that they’re able to be educated. About housing. Have conversations with your community and your family. Volunteer your time, open your home for an organization to be able to hold a meeting or bring some people together. There are so many ways. But so much of it can start with how you communicate in your home, how you open yourself up to understanding what the political current is, what the political moment is and the way that you can be engaged is huge in and of itself.

SEE ALSO

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Two prominent US activist organizations denounce WTO attack on Ontario’s clean energy program

In final appeals ruling, WTO orders Canada to roll back green jobs program

No 745 Posted by fw, May 11, 2013

“As people around the world grapple with consequences of the climate crisis, their governments should and must use every tool available to reduce dangerous carbon pollution and create new clean energy jobs…. To avoid climate chaos, the WTO needs to get out of the way of innovative and successful climate solutions and job creators.”Ilana Solomon, Sierra Club trade representative

Public Citizen and Sierra Club Denounce World Trade Organization Attack on Successful Clean Energy Program, Posted by Ben Beachy, Public Citizen, May 07, 2013

A World Trade Organization (WTO) final ruling against Ontario’s successful renewable energy incentives program, which has reduced carbon emissions and created clean energy jobs, underscores the threat the WTO poses to a clean energy future, Public Citizen and Sierra Club said today.

In November 2012, the WTO ruled that Ontario’s incentives program for renewable energy companies at home – or “feed-in tariff” program – violates WTO rules that forbid treating local or domestic firms and products differently from foreign firms and products. On Monday, the WTO struck down Canada’s appeal of that initial ruling in a decision that went even further to condemn the green jobs program as a violation of WTO rules.

“By ordering the rollback of a successful program that is reducing carbon pollution and creating green jobs after recently sacking three popular U.S. consumer protection policies, the WTO is destroying whatever shred of legitimacy it still had after years of imposing its anti-consumer, anti-environment dictates,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Just like the WTO rulings ordering the U.S. to gut popular laws on country-of-origin meat labelsdolphin-safe tuna labels and limits on candy-flavored cigarettes marketed to kids, this latest attack against an initiative promoting renewable energy, localization and green job creation is simply unacceptable.”

Ontario’s renewable energy incentives program was established under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009. It increases incentives to develop clean and safe renewable energy by guaranteeing that the provincial public electricity utility, Ontario Power Authority, will pay a preferential price for 20 years to companies for the wind, solar and other clean energies they produce. Although the program is new, it already has achieved significant success, including contracts for an estimated 4,600 megawatts worth of clean energy and the creation of more than 20,000 jobs in just two years.

“As people around the world grapple with consequences of the climate crisis, their governments should and must use every tool available to reduce dangerous carbon pollution and create new clean energy jobs,” said Ilana Solomon, Sierra Club trade representative. “To avoid climate chaos, the WTO needs to get out of the way of innovative and successful climate solutions and job creators.”

The Sierra Club and Public Citizen support calls of Canadian allies, including the Council of Canadians, to keep Ontario’s renewable energy incentives program in place.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.