| Photo of lower San Joaquin River on the "Delta Loop" by Dan Bacher |
Censored News
Good Morning
Below are my latest three articles, all about the big corporate money behind Prop. 1, Governor Jerry Brown's Water Bond.
If you every had any doubts that the political process in California wasn't completely corrupt and driven by big money, please read the following articles about: (1) the Nature Conservancy's donation of $500,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign; (2) Big Tobacco and health insurance robber barons teaming up to fund the bond; and (3) a comprehensive, updated review of the massive influx of corporate and billionaire money into Jerry Brown's water bond campaign coffers.
Please circulate these articles widely and make sure that every one you know who cares about fish, water the environment and the people of California votes NO on Prop. 1!
Thanks, Dan
http://www.calitics.com/diary/
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, said, “Donors to Prop. 1 want this water bond to pass so that they can get something from it: short-term jobs building dams that will be created with public tax dollars, land to manage bought with public funds, and taxpayer-subsidized water to grow permanent crops on unsuitable land."
“Prop. 1’s big dam projects will make very little new water, and the water will mainly go to unsustainable huge agribusinesses,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla. “Most disturbing is the $500,000 that the Nature Conservancy has contributed to the Prop 1 campaign. The Nature Conservancy has benefited from the gifting of public lands in the Delta by the Department of Water Resources."
She emphasized, "The Nature Conservancy turned a blind eye to oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for the ability to manage wetlands, and pumps oil on its own lands. In California, they are turning a blind eye to the issue of how water exports will be accelerated from the Bay-Delta estuary if Prop. 1 passes, and how this water will fill Governor Brown's Delta tunnels."
"They are supporting water policies that will serve special corporate interests in exchange for the opportunity to manage more conservancy projects in the Delta and throughout California," concluded Barrigan-Parrilla.
The Nature Conservancy, known for its service to corporate interests at great expense to fish, wildlife, the environment and the public trust, received a total of $5,482,699 from the Walton Family Foundation in 2013. This includes $1,545,963 for freshwater "conservation" on the Colorado River, $1,437,986 for freshwater "conservation" on the Mississippi River. $475,000 for marine "conservation," and $2,023,750 for other "conservation" grants.
The Walton Family Foundation is governed by the descendants of Sam and Helen Walton, the founders of retail giant Walmart, a company notorious for the poor treatment of its workers and its environmentally destructive practices around the globe.
And the Nature Conservancy is not the only NGO supporting the water bond that is funded by Walmart money. An analysis of environmental grants that the Walton Family Foundation gave to conservation organizations in 2013 reveals that NGOs supporting Proposition 1, the water bond on California's November 4 ballot, received a total of $10,786,949 in grants while opponents of the controversial measure received none.
Supporters of the water bond getting money from the Walton Family Foundation in 2013 include the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society (the parent organization of Audubon California, a bond backer), the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited. The Foundation lists their environmental contributions in three categories: freshwater conservation, marine conservation and other conservation grants. (http://www.
National Audubon Society, the parent organization of Audubon California, received $2,570,767, including $312,100 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River, $2,058,667 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River and $200,000 for marine conservation.
The foundation gave the Ocean Conservancy, a strong supporter of the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create questionable "marine protected areas" in California, $1,552,083 for projects in the Gulf of Mexico.
Trout Unlimited was awarded $610,650 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River.
American Rivers received $424,400 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River.
Defenders of Wildlife got $100,058 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River.
Finally, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. received $46,292 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River from the Walton Family Foundation.
The Walton Family Foundation dumps many millions of dollars every year into corporate environmental NGOs, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation International, Nature Conservancy and the Ocean Conservancy, that promote the privatization of the oceans through "catch shares," questionable "marine protected areas" and other projects.
“It is highly troubling to see the impact that Walmart and a few big foundations are having on the conservation of our resources, as well as the protection of our artisanal and traditional fisheries including tribal fisheries," said Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) and opponent of Proposition 1.
Prop. 1 opponents find it even more disturbing to find out that the Nature Conservancy has joined a rogue's gallery of corporate interests that want to pass the $7.5 billion bond so they can get something from it, such as land to manage and "restore" after it is bought with public funds, taxpayer-subsidized water to grow permanent crops on unsuitable land that should have never been irrigated, and short-term jobs building dams that will be created with public tax dollars.
For more information go to http://www.noonprop1.org
03-1b.jpg
pledge_to_vote_no_on_prop...
Nature Conservancy contributes $500,000 to Yes on Prop. 1 campaign
by Dan Bacher
The Nature Conservancy, one of the largest recipients of Walton Family Foundation money every year, has joined Big Oil, corporate agribusiness, the health insurance industry, tobacco giant Philip Morris and greedy billionaires in dumping big money into the Yes on Proposition 1 campaign.
Opponents of Prop. 1, Governor Jerry Brown's State Water Bond, responded to the $500,000 political contribution to Prop. 1 from The Nature Conservancy by calling it “disturbing.”
Opponents of Prop. 1, Governor Jerry Brown's State Water Bond, responded to the $500,000 political contribution to Prop. 1 from The Nature Conservancy by calling it “disturbing.”
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, said, “Donors to Prop. 1 want this water bond to pass so that they can get something from it: short-term jobs building dams that will be created with public tax dollars, land to manage bought with public funds, and taxpayer-subsidized water to grow permanent crops on unsuitable land."
“Prop. 1’s big dam projects will make very little new water, and the water will mainly go to unsustainable huge agribusinesses,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla. “Most disturbing is the $500,000 that the Nature Conservancy has contributed to the Prop 1 campaign. The Nature Conservancy has benefited from the gifting of public lands in the Delta by the Department of Water Resources."
She emphasized, "The Nature Conservancy turned a blind eye to oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for the ability to manage wetlands, and pumps oil on its own lands. In California, they are turning a blind eye to the issue of how water exports will be accelerated from the Bay-Delta estuary if Prop. 1 passes, and how this water will fill Governor Brown's Delta tunnels."
"They are supporting water policies that will serve special corporate interests in exchange for the opportunity to manage more conservancy projects in the Delta and throughout California," concluded Barrigan-Parrilla.
The Nature Conservancy, known for its service to corporate interests at great expense to fish, wildlife, the environment and the public trust, received a total of $5,482,699 from the Walton Family Foundation in 2013. This includes $1,545,963 for freshwater "conservation" on the Colorado River, $1,437,986 for freshwater "conservation" on the Mississippi River. $475,000 for marine "conservation," and $2,023,750 for other "conservation" grants.
The Walton Family Foundation is governed by the descendants of Sam and Helen Walton, the founders of retail giant Walmart, a company notorious for the poor treatment of its workers and its environmentally destructive practices around the globe.
And the Nature Conservancy is not the only NGO supporting the water bond that is funded by Walmart money. An analysis of environmental grants that the Walton Family Foundation gave to conservation organizations in 2013 reveals that NGOs supporting Proposition 1, the water bond on California's November 4 ballot, received a total of $10,786,949 in grants while opponents of the controversial measure received none.
Supporters of the water bond getting money from the Walton Family Foundation in 2013 include the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society (the parent organization of Audubon California, a bond backer), the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited. The Foundation lists their environmental contributions in three categories: freshwater conservation, marine conservation and other conservation grants. (http://www.
National Audubon Society, the parent organization of Audubon California, received $2,570,767, including $312,100 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River, $2,058,667 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River and $200,000 for marine conservation.
The foundation gave the Ocean Conservancy, a strong supporter of the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create questionable "marine protected areas" in California, $1,552,083 for projects in the Gulf of Mexico.
Trout Unlimited was awarded $610,650 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River.
American Rivers received $424,400 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River.
Defenders of Wildlife got $100,058 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River.
Finally, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. received $46,292 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River from the Walton Family Foundation.
The Walton Family Foundation dumps many millions of dollars every year into corporate environmental NGOs, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation International, Nature Conservancy and the Ocean Conservancy, that promote the privatization of the oceans through "catch shares," questionable "marine protected areas" and other projects.
“It is highly troubling to see the impact that Walmart and a few big foundations are having on the conservation of our resources, as well as the protection of our artisanal and traditional fisheries including tribal fisheries," said Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) and opponent of Proposition 1.
Prop. 1 opponents find it even more disturbing to find out that the Nature Conservancy has joined a rogue's gallery of corporate interests that want to pass the $7.5 billion bond so they can get something from it, such as land to manage and "restore" after it is bought with public funds, taxpayer-subsidized water to grow permanent crops on unsuitable land that should have never been irrigated, and short-term jobs building dams that will be created with public tax dollars.
For more information go to http://www.noonprop1.org
2. Big Tobacco and Health Insurance Industry Back Prop. 1
“Gov. Brown should return this money right away,” said Jim Knox, vice president of government relations for ACS CAN in California. “Propositions 1 and 2 are important public policy debates, but the tobacco companies are cynically using these measures to curry favor with the governor. Philip Morris doesn’t care about water or a rainy day fund. They only care about addicting youth and low-income communities to their deadly products."
03-1b.jpg
Big Tobacco, Health Care Industry Team Up to Fund Prop. 1 Campaign
by Dan Bacher
Tobacco giant Philip Morris and the robber barons from the health care and insurance industry have joined a rogue's gallery of corporate agribusiness interests, Big Oil and greedy billionaires in funding the campaign to pass Prop. 1, Governor Jerry Brown's water bond boondogle.
The California Hospitals Committee on Issues, sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems has contributed $500,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 and 2 campaign, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission website.
Dignity Health has donated $250,000 to the campaign. The organization, a three-state hospital chain based in San Francisco has agreed to pay the government $37 million to settle claims that it overbilled Medicare and a military health care program for years, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"The Justice Department said Dignity, formerly known as Catholic Healthcare West, submitted bills for inpatient care at 13 of its 39 hospitals in California, Nevada and Arizona that should have been charged at less-expensive outpatient rates," the Chronicle said. http://www.sfgate.com/
Philip Morris, the largest tobacco company in the United States, contributed $100,000 to Governor Brown’s ballot measure committee established to support Propositions 1& 2.
On October 20, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) strongly encouraged the governor to return those funds.
ACS CAN recently launched its “Snuff Tobacco Money out of California Politics” campaign requesting that all candidates for state office reject campaign contributions, including donations to committees controlled by a candidate such as Governor Brown’s Yes on Prop 1 & 2 Committee.
Under ACS CAN criteria, Gov. Brown is the first candidate for office in the state to accept a campaign contribution from a tobacco company since the effort was launched on July 1.
“Gov. Brown should return this money right away,” said Jim Knox, vice president of government relations for ACS CAN in California. “Propositions 1 and 2 are important public policy debates, but the tobacco companies are cynically using these measures to curry favor with the governor. Philip Morris doesn’t care about water or a rainy day fund. They only care about addicting youth and low-income communities to their deadly products."
"This contribution is all about trying to prevent any policies that help people quit smoking, keep youth from ever starting to smoke and reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. Allowing convicted racketeers to fund his ballot measure committee is a mistake," Knox said.
Knox said tobacco companies inflict enormous harm on our state. A brand new report from researchers at the University of California, San Francisco shows that tobacco costs our state $18.1 billion a year. That comes out to $487 per Californian and $4,603 and per smoker.
Almost 15 percent of deaths in California in 2009 are attributed to smoking, for a total of 34,363 deaths. This represents $6.8 billion in lost productivity and 587,000 years of potential life lost.
"Across the globe, tobacco kills 5 million people a year and if current trends hold, a billion people will die this century from tobacco use," according to Knox. "ACS CAN calls on the governor to return the money. Opponents to Proposition 1 have raised virtually no money and Proposition 2 does not even have a campaign committee to oppose it."
The debate over the pros and cons of Proposition 1, Jerry Brown's $7.5 billion water bond, is very important, but an even larger issue in any environmental battle or process is the money behind the campaign. The big corporate money behind the water bond largely determines who the bond will benefit - billionaires, corporate agribusiness, oil companies and the 1 percent, not the people, fish or wildlife of California.
Contributions to Governor Jerry Brown's Yes on Props 1 and 2 Committee have jumped to $13,880,528.43, according to the latest data posted on the California Secretary of State's website. The contributions feature millions of dollars from billionaires, corporate agribusiness, Big Oil and the tobacco industry - corporate interests that all expect a big return for their "investment" in the corrupt "play to pay" politics that rule California today. (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/
But this isn’t the only committee funding the Yes on 1 campaign. When you consider the other committees backing Prop.1 listed on the Secretary of State’s website, the total amount of contributions jumps by another $2,541,257.91 to $16,421,785.91!
For more information about the corporate money being dumped into Big Oil Brown's Prop. 1 campaign, go to: http://www.dailykos.com/
by Dan Bacher
Tobacco giant Philip Morris and the robber barons from the health care and insurance industry have joined a rogue's gallery of corporate agribusiness interests, Big Oil and greedy billionaires in funding the campaign to pass Prop. 1, Governor Jerry Brown's water bond boondogle.
The California Hospitals Committee on Issues, sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems has contributed $500,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 and 2 campaign, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission website.
Dignity Health has donated $250,000 to the campaign. The organization, a three-state hospital chain based in San Francisco has agreed to pay the government $37 million to settle claims that it overbilled Medicare and a military health care program for years, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"The Justice Department said Dignity, formerly known as Catholic Healthcare West, submitted bills for inpatient care at 13 of its 39 hospitals in California, Nevada and Arizona that should have been charged at less-expensive outpatient rates," the Chronicle said. http://www.sfgate.com/
Philip Morris, the largest tobacco company in the United States, contributed $100,000 to Governor Brown’s ballot measure committee established to support Propositions 1& 2.
On October 20, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) strongly encouraged the governor to return those funds.
ACS CAN recently launched its “Snuff Tobacco Money out of California Politics” campaign requesting that all candidates for state office reject campaign contributions, including donations to committees controlled by a candidate such as Governor Brown’s Yes on Prop 1 & 2 Committee.
Under ACS CAN criteria, Gov. Brown is the first candidate for office in the state to accept a campaign contribution from a tobacco company since the effort was launched on July 1.
“Gov. Brown should return this money right away,” said Jim Knox, vice president of government relations for ACS CAN in California. “Propositions 1 and 2 are important public policy debates, but the tobacco companies are cynically using these measures to curry favor with the governor. Philip Morris doesn’t care about water or a rainy day fund. They only care about addicting youth and low-income communities to their deadly products."
"This contribution is all about trying to prevent any policies that help people quit smoking, keep youth from ever starting to smoke and reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. Allowing convicted racketeers to fund his ballot measure committee is a mistake," Knox said.
Knox said tobacco companies inflict enormous harm on our state. A brand new report from researchers at the University of California, San Francisco shows that tobacco costs our state $18.1 billion a year. That comes out to $487 per Californian and $4,603 and per smoker.
Almost 15 percent of deaths in California in 2009 are attributed to smoking, for a total of 34,363 deaths. This represents $6.8 billion in lost productivity and 587,000 years of potential life lost.
"Across the globe, tobacco kills 5 million people a year and if current trends hold, a billion people will die this century from tobacco use," according to Knox. "ACS CAN calls on the governor to return the money. Opponents to Proposition 1 have raised virtually no money and Proposition 2 does not even have a campaign committee to oppose it."
The debate over the pros and cons of Proposition 1, Jerry Brown's $7.5 billion water bond, is very important, but an even larger issue in any environmental battle or process is the money behind the campaign. The big corporate money behind the water bond largely determines who the bond will benefit - billionaires, corporate agribusiness, oil companies and the 1 percent, not the people, fish or wildlife of California.
Contributions to Governor Jerry Brown's Yes on Props 1 and 2 Committee have jumped to $13,880,528.43, according to the latest data posted on the California Secretary of State's website. The contributions feature millions of dollars from billionaires, corporate agribusiness, Big Oil and the tobacco industry - corporate interests that all expect a big return for their "investment" in the corrupt "play to pay" politics that rule California today. (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/
But this isn’t the only committee funding the Yes on 1 campaign. When you consider the other committees backing Prop.1 listed on the Secretary of State’s website, the total amount of contributions jumps by another $2,541,257.91 to $16,421,785.91!
For more information about the corporate money being dumped into Big Oil Brown's Prop. 1 campaign, go to: http://www.dailykos.com/
3. Goliath Gets Bigger!
The Yes on Prop. 1 contributions feature millions of dollars from billionaires, corporate agribusiness, Big Oil and and the tobacco industry - corporate interests that all expect a big return for their "investment" in the corrupt "play to pay" politics that rules California today.
pledge_to_vote_no_on_prop...
Goliath Gets Bigger: Prop. 1 War Chest Grows to $16.4 Million
by Dan Bacher
The debate over the pros and cons of Proposition 1, Jerry Brown's $7.5 billion water bond, is very important, but an even bigger issue in any environmental battle or process is the money behind the campaign.
The big corporate money behind the water bond largely determines who the bond will benefit - billionaires, corporate agribusiness, oil companies and the 1 percent, not the people, fish or wildlife of California.
Contributions to Governor Jerry Brown's Yes on Props 1 and 2 Committee have jumped to $13,880,528.43, according to the latest data posted on the California Secretary of State's website.
The contributions feature millions of dollars from billionaires, corporate agribusiness, Big Oil and and the tobacco industry - corporate interests that all expect a big return for their "investment" in the corrupt "play to pay" politics that rules California today.
Contributions to the committee from the period from October 1 to October 18 alone amount to $9,537,048.90. (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/
Expenditures during the period from January 1 through October 18 were $10,728,645.50, with $10,149,477.92 just from the period of October 1 to October 18.
But this isn’t the only committee funding the Yes on 1 campaign. When you consider the other committees backing Prop.1 listed on the Secretary of State’s website, the total amount of contributions jumps by another $2,541,257.91 to $16,421,785.91!
The “California Business Political Action Committee,” sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce raised, $550,000 for Yes on 1 and 2 during the period from January 1 to October 18, 2014.
The “Wetlands Conservation Committee, Yes on Prop. 1,” sponsored by Ducks Unlimited, Audubon California and the Nature Committee, raised $215,000 from January 1 through October 18.
Other committees backing Prop. 1 include:
• The “Conservation Action Fund”: $818,623.78
• The Sac Valley Water & Rice For Prop. 1: $44,499.00
• Think Long Committee, sponsored by the Nicolas Berggruen Institute Trust, Supporting Propositions 1 and 2: $250,000
• Western Plant Health Association, Supporting Propositions 1 and 2: $100,000.
• NRDC Action Fund Ballot Measures Committee - Yes on Prop. 1; $9,514.27
• Environmental Coalition for Water and Wildlife Protection – Yes on Prop. 1: $102,000,
• The Southern California District County Laborers PAC: $58,219.02
• The California Water Association Political Issues Committee – Yes on Prop. 1: $100,000
• Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC – Yes on Props 1 and 2: $293,401.84
Background: Oil industry, agribusiness, health care industry and billionaires lead Prop. 1 contributors
While the committees backing Prop. 1 have raised over $16.4 million to date, the Vote No on Prop. 1 campaign, has raised $89,100 and has spent $53,077.(http://ballotpedia.
The campaign for and against Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond on the November 4 ballot, remains the classic David and Goliath battle of this election season in California.
Governor Jerry Brown, the Republican and Democratic Party establishment, corporate agribusiness interests, oil companies, construction unions, corporate "environmental" NGOs, prominent billionaires, the health care industry and big water agencies are backing the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign. In contrast, a grassroots coalition of fishing groups, environmentalists, consumer organizations, Indian Tribes, family farmers and Delta water agencies is campaigning to defeat Proposition 1.
The top 18 campaign contributors – those who donated $250,000 or more - have raised a total of $11,835,279 to date for the Yes on Prop. 1 and campaign, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). (http://fppc.ca.gov/
Dignity Health, which contributed $250,000, is the latest corporate contributor to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign. That donation followed the contribution of $250,000 to the campaign by Aera Energy LLC, a company jointly owned by affiliates of Shell and ExxonMobil.
The Bakersfield-based Aera Energy is one of California's largest oil and gas producers, accounting for nearly 25 percent of the state's production, according to the company’s website. (http://www.aeraenergy.com/
Corporate agribusiness interests, the largest users of federal and state water project water exported through the Delta pumping facilities, have donated a total of $850,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign. The California Farm Bureau Federation contributed $250,000 and the Western Growers Service Association donated $250,000.
Stewart Resnick, the Beverly Hills agribusiness tycoon, owner of Paramount Farms and largest orchard fruit grower in the world, contributed $150,000 and the California Cotton Alliance contributed $200,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign.
Resnick and his wife, Lynda, have been instrumental in promoting campaigns to eviscerate Endangered Species Act protections for Central Valley Chinook salmon and Delta smelt populations and to build the fish-killing peripheral tunnels - and have made millions off reselling environmental water to the public.
The largest individual donor in the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign to date remains Sean Parker, who has contributed $1 million to the campaign. Parker is an entrepreneur and venture capitalist who cofounded the file-sharing computer service Napster and served as the first president of the social networking website Facebook. He also cofounded Plaxo, Causes, and Airtime.
Four members of the Fisher family, who own the controversial Gap stores, have collectively donated $1.5 million to the Yes. on Prop. 1 and Prop. 2 campaign. They also own the Mendocino Redwood Company and Humboldt Redwood Company, formerly the Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO), more than half a million acres of redwood forest lands in total. (http://www.indybay.org/
Doris F. Fisher contributed $499,000, John J. Fisher $351,000, Robert J. Fisher $400,000 and William S. Fisher $250,000. The Gap become notorious among labor and human rights advocates for employing sweatshop labor in the Third World to produce its clothes.
Tobacco giant Philip Morris also contributed $100,000 to Governor Brown’s ballot measure committee established to support Propositions 1 and 2. On October 20, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) called on the governor to return that money.
In contrast to the $13,212,726 in donations to the Prop. 1 and 2 campaigns listed on the FPPC website, the FPPC states, “No committee opposing this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold."
Folks like Stewart Resnick, the Fisher Family and other billionaires, the oil industry and corporate agribusiness interests aren't dumping millions into the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign for the common good or benefit of all Californians - they're doing it as a relatively small investment to advance their own greedy interests and to further privatize and plunder the public trust for their own personal profit.
Six simple reasons why you should vote NO on Prop. 1:
• Prop. 1 will spend $2.7 billion for costly and inefficient dams and bill the public for the expense.
• Prop. 1 would support the Governor’s Twin Tunnels project, as indicated by his Stanford speech on October 20. Brown said that Proposition 1 would provide components missing from the State Water Project “enacted by my father.” These components, Brown ominously intoned, would “deal with the Delta.”
• Prop. 1 violates the public trust. The bond provides hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to purchase water allegedly for public trust purposes, to then divert it from the Delta as “abandoned” water for billionaires’ almond orchards.
• Prop. 1 ignores the bedrock realities of California’s water dilemma. Consumptive water right claims in California already exceed the amount of available water by 5.5 times. Proposition 1 does nothing to rectify this situation. Indeed, it ignores the one thing that must be done if we’re going to stabilize the state’s water policies: balance water rights claims to actual water supplies.
• Prop. 1 provides no strategies to mitigate the impacts of drought. The bond is thus a classic bait-and-switch: It implicitly promises drought solutions it does not deliver.
• Prop. 1 underfunds recycling, conservation and other drought solutions that will provide local jobs and reduce reliance on imported water supplies.
For more information, go to http://www.noonprop1.org
by Dan Bacher
The debate over the pros and cons of Proposition 1, Jerry Brown's $7.5 billion water bond, is very important, but an even bigger issue in any environmental battle or process is the money behind the campaign.
The big corporate money behind the water bond largely determines who the bond will benefit - billionaires, corporate agribusiness, oil companies and the 1 percent, not the people, fish or wildlife of California.
Contributions to Governor Jerry Brown's Yes on Props 1 and 2 Committee have jumped to $13,880,528.43, according to the latest data posted on the California Secretary of State's website.
The contributions feature millions of dollars from billionaires, corporate agribusiness, Big Oil and and the tobacco industry - corporate interests that all expect a big return for their "investment" in the corrupt "play to pay" politics that rules California today.
Contributions to the committee from the period from October 1 to October 18 alone amount to $9,537,048.90. (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/
Expenditures during the period from January 1 through October 18 were $10,728,645.50, with $10,149,477.92 just from the period of October 1 to October 18.
But this isn’t the only committee funding the Yes on 1 campaign. When you consider the other committees backing Prop.1 listed on the Secretary of State’s website, the total amount of contributions jumps by another $2,541,257.91 to $16,421,785.91!
The “California Business Political Action Committee,” sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce raised, $550,000 for Yes on 1 and 2 during the period from January 1 to October 18, 2014.
The “Wetlands Conservation Committee, Yes on Prop. 1,” sponsored by Ducks Unlimited, Audubon California and the Nature Committee, raised $215,000 from January 1 through October 18.
Other committees backing Prop. 1 include:
• The “Conservation Action Fund”: $818,623.78
• The Sac Valley Water & Rice For Prop. 1: $44,499.00
• Think Long Committee, sponsored by the Nicolas Berggruen Institute Trust, Supporting Propositions 1 and 2: $250,000
• Western Plant Health Association, Supporting Propositions 1 and 2: $100,000.
• NRDC Action Fund Ballot Measures Committee - Yes on Prop. 1; $9,514.27
• Environmental Coalition for Water and Wildlife Protection – Yes on Prop. 1: $102,000,
• The Southern California District County Laborers PAC: $58,219.02
• The California Water Association Political Issues Committee – Yes on Prop. 1: $100,000
• Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC – Yes on Props 1 and 2: $293,401.84
Background: Oil industry, agribusiness, health care industry and billionaires lead Prop. 1 contributors
While the committees backing Prop. 1 have raised over $16.4 million to date, the Vote No on Prop. 1 campaign, has raised $89,100 and has spent $53,077.(http://ballotpedia.
The campaign for and against Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond on the November 4 ballot, remains the classic David and Goliath battle of this election season in California.
Governor Jerry Brown, the Republican and Democratic Party establishment, corporate agribusiness interests, oil companies, construction unions, corporate "environmental" NGOs, prominent billionaires, the health care industry and big water agencies are backing the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign. In contrast, a grassroots coalition of fishing groups, environmentalists, consumer organizations, Indian Tribes, family farmers and Delta water agencies is campaigning to defeat Proposition 1.
The top 18 campaign contributors – those who donated $250,000 or more - have raised a total of $11,835,279 to date for the Yes on Prop. 1 and campaign, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). (http://fppc.ca.gov/
Dignity Health, which contributed $250,000, is the latest corporate contributor to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign. That donation followed the contribution of $250,000 to the campaign by Aera Energy LLC, a company jointly owned by affiliates of Shell and ExxonMobil.
The Bakersfield-based Aera Energy is one of California's largest oil and gas producers, accounting for nearly 25 percent of the state's production, according to the company’s website. (http://www.aeraenergy.com/
Corporate agribusiness interests, the largest users of federal and state water project water exported through the Delta pumping facilities, have donated a total of $850,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign. The California Farm Bureau Federation contributed $250,000 and the Western Growers Service Association donated $250,000.
Stewart Resnick, the Beverly Hills agribusiness tycoon, owner of Paramount Farms and largest orchard fruit grower in the world, contributed $150,000 and the California Cotton Alliance contributed $200,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign.
Resnick and his wife, Lynda, have been instrumental in promoting campaigns to eviscerate Endangered Species Act protections for Central Valley Chinook salmon and Delta smelt populations and to build the fish-killing peripheral tunnels - and have made millions off reselling environmental water to the public.
The largest individual donor in the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign to date remains Sean Parker, who has contributed $1 million to the campaign. Parker is an entrepreneur and venture capitalist who cofounded the file-sharing computer service Napster and served as the first president of the social networking website Facebook. He also cofounded Plaxo, Causes, and Airtime.
Four members of the Fisher family, who own the controversial Gap stores, have collectively donated $1.5 million to the Yes. on Prop. 1 and Prop. 2 campaign. They also own the Mendocino Redwood Company and Humboldt Redwood Company, formerly the Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO), more than half a million acres of redwood forest lands in total. (http://www.indybay.org/
Doris F. Fisher contributed $499,000, John J. Fisher $351,000, Robert J. Fisher $400,000 and William S. Fisher $250,000. The Gap become notorious among labor and human rights advocates for employing sweatshop labor in the Third World to produce its clothes.
Tobacco giant Philip Morris also contributed $100,000 to Governor Brown’s ballot measure committee established to support Propositions 1 and 2. On October 20, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) called on the governor to return that money.
In contrast to the $13,212,726 in donations to the Prop. 1 and 2 campaigns listed on the FPPC website, the FPPC states, “No committee opposing this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold."
Folks like Stewart Resnick, the Fisher Family and other billionaires, the oil industry and corporate agribusiness interests aren't dumping millions into the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign for the common good or benefit of all Californians - they're doing it as a relatively small investment to advance their own greedy interests and to further privatize and plunder the public trust for their own personal profit.
Six simple reasons why you should vote NO on Prop. 1:
• Prop. 1 will spend $2.7 billion for costly and inefficient dams and bill the public for the expense.
• Prop. 1 would support the Governor’s Twin Tunnels project, as indicated by his Stanford speech on October 20. Brown said that Proposition 1 would provide components missing from the State Water Project “enacted by my father.” These components, Brown ominously intoned, would “deal with the Delta.”
• Prop. 1 violates the public trust. The bond provides hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to purchase water allegedly for public trust purposes, to then divert it from the Delta as “abandoned” water for billionaires’ almond orchards.
• Prop. 1 ignores the bedrock realities of California’s water dilemma. Consumptive water right claims in California already exceed the amount of available water by 5.5 times. Proposition 1 does nothing to rectify this situation. Indeed, it ignores the one thing that must be done if we’re going to stabilize the state’s water policies: balance water rights claims to actual water supplies.
• Prop. 1 provides no strategies to mitigate the impacts of drought. The bond is thus a classic bait-and-switch: It implicitly promises drought solutions it does not deliver.
• Prop. 1 underfunds recycling, conservation and other drought solutions that will provide local jobs and reduce reliance on imported water supplies.
For more information, go to http://www.noonprop1.org
Note from Censored News: The top person at Nature Conservancy received a salary and compensation in 2013 of $616,000.
.
1 comment:
It is true that the corporate enviro NGO's such as Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, Sierra Club, Pacific Foundation and Packard's underhanded Resources legacy do have the large East coast banking funds manage their portfolios- they team up to create laws that enrich the banks and the NGO's alike and they use the fake enviro message as a front to get people to give up their rights and options to clean water
In the end the water barrons will own the day and we will all be forced to bow down
--well water on private property will be controlled per new Gerry Brown laws
---- de salination is seen as threat as it stops run away prices-
-no new water is piped in form water rich states
---even roof rain chatching system are now illegal
Case in point is WATER--
East Coast bankers are currently involved in water asset management - this means they are hoarding fresh water rights water actively working to restrict human access to said water- this means in the end they will be water barrons and society could become inslaved to the the bankers and the Nature Conservancy that tricked us all into thinking there are no good water options left- in fact we can pipe water in, use de-salination and much more to defend our way of life
WAKE up people the water thing is a giant trick- don't believe the hype-w e can have all the water we need, we just need to toss out the Nature Conservancy and their hidden agendas.
Post a Comment