Hasta La Gadget!

Wisconsin is the latest state to see a national group attempting to influence state-level policies on utility rates and solar energy — and this one used a campaign that allegedly faked support from locals.

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission is reviewing three cases where utility companies have asked for changes to the rate structure. As part of the public comment process on those proposals, a group named the Consumer Energy Alliance submitted a petition claiming support from 2,500 Wisconsin residents “who believe every energy consumer should pay a fair share for maintaining the electrical grid” and who support changes to the current utility rate structures. Consumer Energy Alliance is a Houston-based trade group with connections to Washington, D.C., energy lobbyists.

The petition caught the attention of many in the state who thought it was suspect that 2,500 people would sign a petition in support of policies that would likely raise their energy bills. Many also wondered why the CEA, a Houston-based group, would be so interested in Wisconsin rate policies. Not long after the petition was submitted, however, a reporter at Madison’s Cap Times found that at least some of the people who reportedly signed the petition weren’t aware of what they were signing and actually opposed the rate changes.

Cap Times reporter Mike Ivey found many of the supposed signers said they had received a phone call but had not actually signed the petition, or that they had been unclear of the position the petition advocated. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission reviewed the submission, and on Thursday announced that it was not accepting the petition because a disk submitted along with it for substantiation “didn’t contain the information” promised, Cynthia Smith, the chief legal counsel for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, told The Huffington Post. The commission’s administrative law judge “determined there wasn’t sufficient information as to the methodology or what people thought they were signing,” said Smith. Thus, the petition won’t be considered as part of the record in the rate cases.

The petition was filed as part of proceedings on proposed rate changes for Wisconsin utilities. It was supposedly signed by customers of Madison Gas & Electric and WE Energies, which each have separate proposals before the commission. The proposals from MGE and WE would both increase the fixed charges for customers while lowering the amount customers pay per kilowatt hour of energy used. The proposal from WE would also lower the amount of money customers with solar panels could make by selling excess energy they generate back to the grid — a policy known as net metering.

Wisconsin is one of 43 states and the District of Columbia that has a net metering policy, which has been credited with helping grow the market for rooftop solar. But electric utilities in a number of states have been pushing back on those policies in recent years and attempting to raise the rates on solar customers, who they argue are not paying their fair share for use of the grid. One of the most recent disputes over solar policy took place in Arizona in 2013, when the local utility eventually disclosed that it was funding a campaign from the national conservative group 60 Plus Association against net metering.

The CEA said Thursday that it was withdrawing the petition from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission record anyway. David Holt, the group’s president, told The Huffington Post that the CEA didn’t intend for the petition to be “specific to merits of any rate case” and instead it was about presenting “sensible, logical, balanced positions” on electricity.

Holt pushed back on claims that the names on the petition were gathered in a misleading or incorrect manner. “As we do with all these cases, we went back and reviewed our entire process and verified the authenticity of all the respondents and the accuracy of our whole process, so we’re comfortable with that,” he said.

But the CEA’s involvement in Wisconsin has drawn attention overall. While the group says it represents consumer interests, its member list is made up of a number of oil and gas companies and manufacturers. And the group has close ties with HBW Resources, a lobbying and consulting firm that says its mission is to “promote government policies on behalf of our clients that encourage the development of energy resources.” Holt is a managing partner, but says he spends “99 percent” of his time on the Consumer Energy Alliance; all the staffers listed on its site also work for HBW Resources. Holt said the Consumer Energy Alliance, which is registered as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, is run by a board of directors and the board “signs a contract with HBW Resources to help manage CEA.”

Both WE Energies and MGE have said they had no involvement with the CEA or the petition. “We’re not involved with CEA and we had nothing to do with the circulation of the petition,” said WE spokesman Brian Manthey. MGE spokesman Steve Schultz said: “We oppose any group or activity that would mislead, misinform or interfere with the right of due process entitled to all MGE customers. Our commitment is to them.”

The CEA petition raised hackles among people in Wisconsin who oppose the proposed changes. “Public input is supposed to be a really important piece of consideration in rate cases,” said state Rep. Chris Taylor (D) in an interview with The Huffington Post. “I’m concerned that we’ve had some fraud by this out-of-state group, alleging that there are 2,500 people that want to double their utility base rates.”

Taylor is also concerned about what the proposed changes would mean for solar. “It’s really an attack on consumer production of energy,” said Taylor, adding that it will determine the future of energy policy in the state. “Is Wisconsin going to be a state that welcomes renewable energy, or are we going to tax renewables out of existence?”

Tyler Huebner, executive director of the pro-renewables group RENEW Wisconsin, which also opposes the changes, thinks the changes would paralyze the growth of solar. RENEW’s analysis has found that solar has only a 0.02 percent penetration in WE Energies territories currently, and a 0.07 percent penetration in areas MGE serves. Going forward with the changes, “It would be very select few locations that would be interested in solar,” says Huebner. “It would really, really dampen the market, and would probably remove it for residential.”

Some of the groups that had asked the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to review the CEA petition want more scrutiny turned on the CEA. “If the only consequence from this is that the petition is thrown out, it’s certainly not a deterrent to CEA in how it handles public comments in other states and other proceedings,” said Robert Kelter, a senior attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center based in Madison. “There’s got to be some consequence to taking an oath that you’re telling the truth in a public service commission hearing and then getting caught [in a situation where] what you were saying was not true.”

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s decisions on the rate cases are expected by the end of the year.

AKRON, Ohio (AP) — A man who was convicted of beating his girlfriend’s parents to death with a sledgehammer should be executed, a jury said Friday.

After hearing arguments from prosecutors and defense lawyers, the Summit County jury that convicted Shawn Ford Jr. of aggravated murder last week recommended he be given the death sentence for killing 59-year-old Margaret Schobert. The jury split its decision, recommending that Ford be given life in prison without parole for the slaying of 56-year-old Jeffrey Schobert. Judge Tom Parker will have the final decision when he sentences the 20-year-old Ford later.

Ford, of Akron, put his head down and showed no emotion when the decision was announced. Attorneys and families declined to comment afterward, citing a gag order.

Prosecutors said Ford and a 14-year-old boy killed the Schoberts in their home near Akron in April 2013 because they kept Ford from seeing their daughter after he severely beat her. They said the Schoberts’ killings came 10 days after Ford stabbed and critically injured their daughter for refusing him sex.

They said Ford and the teenage boy fatally beat Jeffrey Schobert in his bed with a sledgehammer, then lured Margaret Schobert home to her death by sending her text messages from her dead husband’s cellphone.

Ford’s attorneys argued that he can’t legally face the death penalty because of his low IQ. The judge is expected to conduct a hearing on that issue before the sentencing.

The teenage boy charged in the case is awaiting trial.

In November 1999, the WTO met in Seattle, where I live, to negotiate the terms of globalization.

I missed it.

At the time, I was negotiating a union contract. Our negotiating teams recommended rejecting a terrible contract offer. Over 98% of our members voted “No,” leading to a 40-day strike a few weeks later.

My daughter heard about the WTO meeting from friends at school. She asked me if she could cut class with her friend Janine to go to the demonstrations. I told her three things. First, of course! This is history. You must see it. Second, here are two quarters. If you get arrested, call me and I will come get you out. (Cells phones were still a novelty.) Third, stick with Janine. No boys. For each boy you add to your group, your collective IQ drops by half – an old Dave Barry joke, but I know something about this.

I didn’t understand the WTO or it’s work. My feelings were captured in the movie, Battle in Seattle (great trailer) featuring Charlize Theron, Michelle Rodriquez, and Woody Harrelson. Near the end of the movie, demonstrators are in jail, asking each other if all the planning and effort had been worth it. One said, last week no one knew about the WTO. This week they still don’t, but they’re against it.

In the 15 years since, the demonstrators’ message has come into focus.

A generation ago, trade deals were about trade. They were really boring, with incomprehensible names like General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The WTO broadened those goals from boring tariffs to regulation, health care, patents, the environment, currency manipulation, financial regulation, immigration, government procurement, labor rights and human rights – policies that are normally settled through democratic accountable political processes.

Photo by Dang Ngo / Rainforest Action Network.

NAFTA took effect in 1994, introducing a new format for globalization. NAFTA was designed from the top down to tip power in favor of global corporations, at the expense of civil society.

The WTO met in Seattle to extend NAFTA’s corporate-friendly principles to a global standard. Mass opposition in Seattle and elsewhere blocked that effort.

Globalization shifted course. Rather than seeking global consensus at the WTO, where many countries were reluctant, globalization would move forward through “bilateral” agreements. Large countries would have more bargaining power over smaller ones, and the bilateral deals would attract less attention and less opposition. We now have a jumble of hundreds of bilateral agreements.

Today, we are circling in on the global standard, with two new multi-regional agreements – one with 12 countries around the Pacific (TPP), and a second between the US and Europe (TTIP). Again, the issue is not trade. It’s about defining the moral, social, political and economic terms of globalization.

Looking back to 1999, it’s clear that the WTO and NAFTA-style trade deals were never about economics or shared prosperity. They are really about power relationships. Who will have the power to claim any new gains created through work?

A European diplomat recently promoted this multi-regional approach, saying the global standards set in these deals would be great for global corporations. TPP and TTIP would determine how life would be organized in 2050.

Thinking back, my union contract negotiations in 1999 and the WTO demonstrations in Seattle were really two sides of the same coin. It’s all about power relationships – who will decide how we divide wealth?

At a labor meeting during our strike, our International President told a large crowd that most strikes in the last 20 years were against take-aways, not for new gains. Workers struck to keep what they had.

Our strike marked a huge shift in the our power relationship, as workers. In our old relationship, our CEO had said employees were his most important asset. Our new workplace power relationship looks more like Wal-Mart’s approach, adapted to our high-end manufacturing industry. In the Wal-Mart business model, every stakeholder should feel at risk, contingent and precarious. The dominant stakeholder will extract gains from all other stakeholders, then come around and demand more concessions.

Productivity would come from the global supplier network. Any work and any job could be moved to another country, either for lower cost, a weaker civil society, or simply as leverage to play one stakeholder off against another.

If that is global businesses’ new business ethic, then the trade deals are creating global norms to serve that goal. This new system is working exactly the way it was designed.

In 1999, most Americans gave our trade negotiators the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof fell on the labor and environmental protesters in Seattle and other cities. With years of lived experience since NAFTA, the jail scene in the movie looks more perceptive every day. We’re not sure what the global trading system does, but we’re against it.

Fifteen years on, critics of our trade policy now have the benefit of doubt. The burden of proof falls on the advocates of more NATFA-style deals.

WASHINGTON — In Iowa, a television station recently created a new program so it could sell more advertising to political campaigns, party committees and independent groups bombarding voters in this year’s battleground states.

The advertising crush is being driven in large part by big-spending independent groups, including super PACs and nonprofits, which are on pace to set a record for independent spending in a midterm election cycle. The groups are set to spend more than $600 million — double their expenses from the 2010 elections. Super PACs accounted for $332 million in spending through the end of October, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Massive contributions from the wealthiest Americans, large corporations, dark money nonprofits and labor unions are behind this super PAC spending binge. A review of Federal Election Commission records by The Huffington Post found that 140 donors who gave more than $500,000 each to super PACs accounted for $365.5 million in super PAC donations as of Oct. 15 — 61 percent of all super PAC contributions in the 2014 cycle.

The top donor to these unlimited money groups is Thomas Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist and former hedge fund executive. Steyer launched his own super PAC last year as part of an effort to elect politicians who will act to slow climate change. He has pumped $74.2 million into his own group, NextGen Climate Action, and other super PACs supporting Senate Democrats.

Steyer is approaching the $100 million given by casino oligarch Sheldon Adelson and his family in the 2012 election. This big giving is part of an emerging trend of Democratic-oriented mega-donors dominating the disclosed unlimited money scene.

Overall, mega-donors giving solely to Democratic Party groups pumped $228.4 million into super PACs, or 62 percent of the total, compared with $109.6 million for Republican mega-donors.

This is a significant change from the 2012 election. At this point in 2012, Republican mega-donors were the source of 61 percent of all contributions over $500,000.

By no means does this mean Democrats are winning on the independent spending front. Republicans are buoyed by spending from dark money nonprofits. These groups are not bound by disclosure laws, so it’s impossible to know the size or number of mega-donors giving to them. Some, like the Koch brothers and Adelson, have been reported to be behind millions in undisclosed spending.

The influx of Democratic mega-donor money has helped the party close the gap in independent spending as it works to protect its Senate majority in a tough election.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic-aligned groups accounted for just 28.2 percent of all independent spending by non-party groups in 2012, while Republicans made up 69.4 percent of spending. So far in 2014, Democratic groups capture 38.9 percent of the independent spending and Republicans are down to 54.3 percent.

Aside from the partisan donors who dominate the list, there are a handful of givers to super PACs who back both parties. These include former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the third-largest super PAC donor with more than $20 million contributed. Bloomberg’s Independence USA PAC is supporting both Republicans and Democrats at the federal and state level. He has also donated to Senate Majority PAC, the main unlimited money arm of the Senate Democratic party leadership.

Others giving to both sides include Facebook and Napster billionaire Sean Parker, energy investment billionaire John Arnold, and labor unions and business trade associations including the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the National Association of Realtors.

Steyer, Bloomberg, Parker and Arnold are part of a strong contingent of Forbes 400 billionaires who are putting their money into politics this cycle. Of the 95 individuals donating to super PACs, 34 are billionaires. These plutocrats favor Republicans.

Billionaires lined up on the Democratic side include Steyer, James Simons, George Soros, David Bonderman and Laurie Michaels, Reid Hoffman, Jon Stryker, Pat Stryker, John Doerr, Robert and Ann Bass, Marc Benioff and Laurene Powell Jobs.

In addition to Adelson and Charles and David Koch, Republican billionaire super PAC mega-donors include Paul Singer, Joe Ricketts, Joseph Craft, Robert McNair, Warren Stephens, Jerrold Perenchio, Ken Griffin, Linda McMahon, Seth Klarman, B. Wayne Hughes, Daniel Loeb, Paul Foster, Diane Hendricks, Julian Robertson, Richard DeVos and his family, Bernard Marcus and Robert Rowling.

Super PACs were created by the Federal Election Commission after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which holds that spending by independent groups funded by corporations could not lead to corruption or even its appearance. A lower court ruling based entirely on Citizens United extended the decision to individuals, allowing them to pool unlimited sums in independent political groups.

Since then, the groups have been dominated by billionaires, unions, and to a lesser extent, corporations.

In September, Chevron Corp., the oil giant, made a $1 million donation to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC dedicated to electing Republicans to the House.

The Republican-led House has worked hard to roll back Environmental Protection Agency regulations of greenhouse gas emissions and to protect oil and gas company tax breaks. One House committee has gone on record refusing to acknowledge climate change.

Other large corporate contributions came from Mountaire Corp., Contran Corp., Rooney Holdings and Weaver Holdings.

See below for the full list of super PAC mega-donor giving from Jan. 1, 2013 through Oct. 15, 2014. This list excludes donations from super PACs to other super PACs:

Source: Federal Election Commission.

In a perfect world, anyone who sent in a buck for those novelty x-ray specs advertised in the back of comic books would be gifted with the actual ability to see through solid stuff. In reality, we have to rely on the kindness of folks with real tech for a peek. So: Thanks, Smithsonian!

Read more…