Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 842)

 Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 842) The American economy is not working for most Americans. While corporations and the wealthy continue to capture the rewards of a growing economy — working families and middle-class Americans are being left behind. From 1980 to 2017, average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of households increased just 1.1 percent, while average incomes for the wealthiest 1 percent increased more than 184 percent. This inequality is not a natural product of a functioning economy. 

It is the result of policy choices that have stripped workers of the power to join together and negotiate for decent wages, benefits, and working conditions. The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act restores fairness to the economy by strengthening the federal laws that protect workers’ right to join a union. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that far too many workers do not have access to basic workplace safety protections, health care, or paid leave. Protecting the right to organize is therefore essential for ensuring a just recovery. 

Unions are critical to increasing wages and creating an economy that rewards hardworking people, but special interest-funded attacks on labor laws have eroded union membership. In 1956, roughly one in every three workers were union members. After a decades-long effort to weaken and exploit toothless labor laws, just 10 percent of American workers are unionized today. 

 The Protecting the Right to Organize Act protects the basic right to join a union by: 

(1) Introducing meaningful, enforceable penalties for companies and executives that violate workers’ rights, (2) Expanding workers’ collective bargaining rights and closing loopholes that corporations use to exploit workers, and  (3) Strengthening workers’ access to fair union elections and requiring corporations to respect the results. Introducing Meaningful, Enforceable Penalties for Companies that Violate Workers’ Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that protects workers’ right to join together and negotiate with their employers, there are no monetary penalties for companies that violate workers’ rights and no assurance that workers will have timely access to justice.

 In response, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act: • Authorizes meaningful penalties for companies and executives for violating workers’ rights. The bill authorizes the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to assess monetary penalties for each violation in which a worker is wrongfully terminated or suffers serious economic harm. The bill also permits the Board to impose personal liability on corporate directors and officers who participate in violations of workers’ rights or have knowledge of and fail to prevent such violations. 

 • Streamlines access to justice for workers who suffer retaliation for exercising their rights. Rather than enduring a long period of unemployment waiting for their case to be heard, the bill requires the NLRB to immediately seek an injunction to reinstate the employee while their case is pending. It also gives the NLRB the power to enforce its own rulings, like other federal agencies, instead of waiting for a decision from the Court of Appeals. 

• Authorizes a private right of action for violations of workers’ rights. The bill allows workers to seek justice in court when employers unlawfully interfere with their rights or retaliate against them for exercising their rights, if the NLRB’s General Counsel fails to prosecute their case. Under current law, workers have no recourse if the NLRB’s General Counsel fails to take their case. Expanding Workers’ Collective Bargaining Rights and Closing Loopholes that Corporations Use to Exploit Workers In the Supreme Court, in Congress, and in state legislatures, conservative ideologues have attacked workers’ rights, allowing greedy corporations to deprive workers of their pay, benefits, and rights. In response, the PRO Act: 

• Gives workers the power to override so-called “right-to-work” laws that prevent unions from collecting dues from the workers they represent. To prevent free-riders from benefitting from the representation and services unions must provide without paying their fair share for those services, the PRO Act allows employers and unions to enter into a contract that allows unions to collect fair-share fees that cover the costs of collective bargaining and administering the agreement.

 • Enhances workers’ right to support boycotts, strikes, or other acts of solidarity. The bill protects workers’ First Amendment Rights by removing prohibitions on workers acting in solidarity with workers at other companies. Also, the bill safeguards the right to strike by clarifying that “intermittent” strikes don’t lose their federal protection, and by prohibiting companies from permanently replacing workers who participate in a strike. 

• Closes loopholes in labor law that erode workers’ rights. The bill prevents employers from misclassifying their employees and prevents workers from being denied remedies due to their immigration status. It also sets a “joint employer” standard that ensures employees across the country have the right to collectively bargain with all of the companies that control the terms and conditions of their employment. • Safeguards workers’ access to justice by overturning Justice Gorsuch’s assault on workers in Epic Systems v. Lewis. The bill will clarify that employers may not force employees to waive their right to engage in collective or class-action litigation. Strengthening Workers’ Access to Fair Union Elections and Requiring Corporations to Respect the Results Workers seeking to form a union are forced endure a process that is rigged against them from start to finish. As a result, many workers do not have a real opportunity to exercise their basic rights. In response, the PRO Act: 

• Prevents employers from interfering in union elections. The bill prohibits employers from requiring workers to attend meetings designed to persuade them against voting in favor of a union. If a violation takes place or the employer otherwise interferes with a union representation election, the NLRB will be empowered to issue an order that requires the employer to bargain with the union. The bill also prevents employers from interfering in representation cases, which exist to determine workers’ free choice, not corporations’ preference about how their employees should exercise protected rights. Furthermore, the bill permits employees to vote off their employers’ premises, in a neutral, non-coercive environment of their choosing.

 • Facilitates initial collective bargaining agreements. Even when workers succeed in forming a union, nearly half of newly formed unions fail to ever reach a contract with the employer. The bill facilitates first contracts between companies and newly certified unions by requiring mediation and arbitration to settle disputes. • Increases transparency in labor-management relations. The bill requires employers to post notices that inform workers of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, and to disclose contracts with consultants hired to persuade employees on how to exercise their rights.

ESPAÑOL

 Ley de Protección del Derecho de Organización (PRO) (H.R. 842) La economía estadounidense no está funcionando para la mayoría de los estadounidenses. Mientras las corporaciones y los ricos siguen capturando las recompensas de una economía en crecimiento, las familias trabajadoras y los estadounidenses de clase media se están quedando atrás. De 1980 a 2017, los ingresos medios del 90 por ciento de los hogares más desfavorecidos aumentaron solo un 1,1 por ciento, mientras que los ingresos medios del 1 por ciento más rico aumentaron más del 184 por ciento. Esta desigualdad no es un producto natural de una economía que funciona. 

Es el resultado de decisiones políticas que han despojado a los trabajadores del poder de unirse y negociar salarios, beneficios y condiciones de trabajo decentes. La Ley de Protección del Derecho de Sindicación (PRO) devuelve la equidad a la economía reforzando las leyes federales que protegen el derecho de los trabajadores a afiliarse a un sindicato. La pandemia del COVID-19 ha revelado que demasiados trabajadores no tienen acceso a las protecciones básicas de seguridad en el lugar de trabajo, a la atención sanitaria o a las vacaciones pagadas. Por lo tanto, proteger el derecho a organizarse es esencial para garantizar una recuperación justa. 

Los sindicatos son fundamentales para aumentar los salarios y crear una economía que recompense a las personas trabajadoras, pero los ataques a las leyes laborales financiados por intereses especiales han erosionado la afiliación sindical. En 1956, aproximadamente uno de cada tres trabajadores estaba sindicado. Después de un esfuerzo de décadas para debilitar y explotar las leyes laborales, sólo el 10% de los trabajadores estadounidenses están sindicalizados hoy en día. 

 La Ley de Protección del Derecho de Sindicación protege el derecho básico de afiliarse a un sindicato mediante 

(1) Introduciendo sanciones significativas y ejecutables para las empresas y los ejecutivos que violen los derechos de los trabajadores, (2) ampliando los derechos de negociación colectiva de los trabajadores y cerrando las lagunas que las empresas utilizan para explotar a los trabajadores, y (3) reforzando el acceso de los trabajadores a elecciones sindicales justas y exigiendo a las empresas que respeten los resultados. Introducir sanciones significativas y ejecutables para las empresas que violan los derechos de los trabajadores En la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales (NLRA), la ley federal que protege el derecho de los trabajadores a unirse y negociar con sus empleadores, no hay sanciones monetarias para las empresas que violan los derechos de los trabajadores y no hay garantía de que los trabajadores tengan un acceso oportuno a la justicia DeepL.

 En respuesta, la Ley de Protección del Derecho de Sindicación: - Autoriza sanciones significativas para las empresas y los ejecutivos que violen los derechos de los trabajadores. El proyecto de ley autoriza a la Junta Nacional de Relaciones Laborales (NLRB) a imponer sanciones monetarias por cada violación en la que un trabajador sea despedido injustamente o sufra un grave perjuicio económico. El proyecto de ley también permite a la Junta imponer responsabilidad personal a los directores y funcionarios de empresas que participen en violaciones de los derechos de los trabajadores o tengan conocimiento de dichas violaciones y no las eviten. 

 - Agiliza el acceso a la justicia de los trabajadores que sufren represalias por ejercer sus derechos. En lugar de soportar un largo periodo de desempleo a la espera de que se resuelva su caso, el proyecto de ley exige a la NLRB que solicite inmediatamente una orden judicial para reincorporar al empleado mientras su caso está pendiente. También otorga a la NLRB la facultad de hacer cumplir sus propias sentencias, al igual que otros organismos federales, en lugar de esperar una decisión del Tribunal de Apelación. 

- Autoriza un derecho de acción privado para las violaciones de los derechos de los trabajadores. El proyecto de ley permite a los trabajadores recurrir a los tribunales cuando los empleadores interfieran ilegalmente en sus derechos o tomen represalias contra ellos por ejercerlos, en caso de que el Consejo General de la NLRB no lleve adelante su caso. Con la ley actual, los trabajadores no tienen ningún recurso si el Consejero General de la NLRB no se hace cargo de su caso. En el Tribunal Supremo, en el Congreso y en las legislaturas estatales, los ideólogos conservadores han atacado los derechos de los trabajadores, permitiendo a las empresas codiciosas privar a los trabajadores de su salario, beneficios y derechos. En respuesta, la Ley PRO 

- Da a los trabajadores el poder de anular las llamadas leyes de "derecho al trabajo" que impiden a los sindicatos cobrar las cuotas de los trabajadores que representan. Para evitar que los aprovechados se beneficien de la representación y los servicios que los sindicatos deben proporcionar sin pagar su parte justa por esos servicios, la Ley PRO permite a los empresarios y a los sindicatos celebrar un contrato que permita a los sindicatos recaudar cuotas justas que cubran los costes de la negociación colectiva y la administración del acuerdo.

 - Mejora el derecho de los trabajadores a apoyar boicots, huelgas u otros actos de solidaridad. El proyecto de ley protege los derechos de la Primera Enmienda de los trabajadores, eliminando las prohibiciones para que los trabajadores actúen en solidaridad con los trabajadores de otras empresas. Además, el proyecto de ley salvaguarda el derecho a la huelga aclarando que las huelgas "intermitentes" no pierden su protección federal, y prohibiendo a las empresas la sustitución permanente de los trabajadores que participan en una huelga. 

- Cierra las lagunas de la legislación laboral que erosionan los derechos de los trabajadores. El proyecto de ley impide que los empresarios clasifiquen erróneamente a sus empleados y que se denieguen recursos a los trabajadores por su condición de inmigrantes. También establece una norma de "empleador conjunto" que garantiza a los empleados de todo el país el derecho a negociar colectivamente con todas las empresas que controlan los términos y condiciones de su empleo. - Salvaguarda el acceso de los trabajadores a la justicia anulando el ataque del juez Gorsuch a los trabajadores en el caso Epic Systems v. Lewis. El proyecto de ley aclarará que los empleadores no pueden obligar a los empleados a renunciar a su derecho a participar en litigios colectivos o de clase. Fortalecer el acceso de los trabajadores a elecciones sindicales justas y exigir a las empresas que respeten los resultados Los trabajadores que buscan formar un sindicato se ven obligados a soportar un proceso que está amañado en su contra de principio a fin. Como resultado, muchos trabajadores no tienen una oportunidad real de ejercer sus derechos básicos. En respuesta, la Ley PRO 

- Impide que los empresarios interfieran en las elecciones sindicales. El proyecto de ley prohíbe a los empresarios exigir a los trabajadores que asistan a reuniones destinadas a persuadirles de que no voten a favor de un sindicato. Si se produce una infracción o el empresario interfiere de alguna manera en una elección de representación sindical, la NLRB estará facultada para emitir una orden que obligue al empresario a negociar con el sindicato. El proyecto de ley también impide que los empresarios interfieran en los casos de representación, que existen para determinar la libre elección de los trabajadores, no la preferencia de las empresas sobre cómo deben ejercer sus empleados los derechos protegidos. Además, el proyecto de ley permite a los empleados votar fuera de las instalaciones de sus empleadores, en un entorno neutral y no coercitivo de su elección.

 - Facilita los acuerdos iniciales de negociación colectiva. Incluso cuando los trabajadores consiguen formar un sindicato, casi la mitad de los sindicatos recién formados no llegan a firmar un contrato con la empresa. El proyecto de ley facilita los primeros contratos entre las empresas y los sindicatos recién certificados al exigir la mediación y el arbitraje para resolver los conflictos. - Aumenta la transparencia en las relaciones laborales. El proyecto de ley obliga a los empresarios a publicar avisos que informen a los trabajadores de sus derechos en virtud de la Ley Nacional de Relaciones Laborales, y a revelar los contratos con los consultores contratados para persuadir a los empleados sobre cómo ejercer sus derechos.

California Is Greenlighting Oil Wells Linked to Groundwater Pollution

 

Published

 

on

 April 8, 2021

By

 Aaron Cantu 

Source: Capital & Main

The impact of underground injection wells on aquifers is not well understood, but the state continues to allow their proliferation.

                                                  The North Belridge Oil Field. Photo: Sarah Craig/Faces of Fracking.

Throughout 2020 and early 2021, California issued more than 300 permits to oil and gas companies for new underground injection wells — an intensive form of oil production and wastewater disposal.

But the actual number of new injection wells is likely higher, owing to the state’s opaque approval process that has drawn scrutiny from auditors and environmentalists. Some of these undercounted wells may be polluting groundwater used for public drinking and agricultural purposes, according to regulatory filings reviewed by Capital & Main.

The impact of injection wells on groundwater in California is understudied, regulators say. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), which issues the permits and regulates the industry, is currently the subject of a lawsuit alleging the division issued permits for wells without required environmental reviews.

Environmentalists say it’s another contradiction in the state’s energy policy, which seeks to position California as a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time issuing hundreds of permits for injection wells — an energy-intensive and pollution-heavy form of hydrocarbon production — and prolonging society’s dependence on fossil fuels.
 

USGS and State Water Board studying groundwater impacts

Following a 2013 law, state and local water regulators have worked with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to assemble criteria for monitoring groundwater in the vicinity of oil and gas wells. At least two assessments, one in Ventura County and another in Kern County, showed petroleum-related gases or fluids migrating into important aquifers.

In statements to Capital & Main, the oil and gas industry claimed that these assessments had not proven that injection wells negatively impacted public water supplies. Yet the full story is more complicated: The state’s nine regional water boards, which are overseen by the State Water Resources Control Board, have only recently begun looking at the issue, and in some cases oil companies have resisted regulatory actions or framed inconclusive findings as a victory.

Most of the injection well permits issued by CalGEM were for oil production through cyclic steam, waterflooding or steamflooding, all of which involve pushing pressurized water into a layer of diatomite — a fossilized slice of earth containing hardened oil — and allowing the water to loosen the oil until it can be pumped out. Injection wells can be as deep as 5,000 feet and account for 60% of all produced oil in California, where much of the remaining supply is difficult to access by more conventional means.

A related kind of well involves injecting water produced while extracting oil back into an underground aquifer to dispose of it. To do this, an aquifer must be exempted from federal protections by the EPA — a trend that accelerated under former President Trump’s administration. Injected water is also used to increase overall oil production in more than 95% of the state’s injection wells. It’s often mixed with toxic chemicals.

The impact of injection wells on groundwater is still coming into focus, according to John Borkovich, a supervising engineering geologist who oversees the state’s groundwater monitoring programs for the state water board. Although state law requires the well path be sealed with corrosion-resistant materials, damaged wells can leak.

“What we’ve seen is that the disposal of produced water has been of the most concern to the [regional] water boards,” Borkovich told Capital & Main. In the case of cyclic steam and other forms of steam or water injection to extract oil, he added, “as far as groundwater contamination associated with it, we’ve just barely scraped the surface with the USGS studies on looking at that particular issue, [so] it’s premature to make a statement one way or another.”

A state moratorium on new high-pressure fracturing projects and wells, issued in January 2020 by Gov. Newsom’s administration, still allows for approvals of injection wells operating at lower pressures. Some high-pressure cyclic steam wells that existed prior to the moratorium also received rework permits during 2020 or 2021, according to a CalGEM spokesperson.

The moratorium came in response to above-ground oil spills, but did not mention potential risks to groundwater.
 

Faceoff in Ventura

One of the more public scraps over water pollution has unfolded in Ventura County. A USGS report from 2019 found that petroleum-related gases in the vicinity of injection wells on the Oxnard Plain were migrating into an overlying aquifer that supplies water to 700,000 residents, prompting the county to institute new regulations.

A follow-up USGS study released in January found that water samples with the highest concentrations of thermogenic gases were near oil wells and large volumes of injected water, but couldn’t determine the source of the gases due to a small sample size.

In an emailed statement to Capital & Main, the California Independent Petroleum Association said that the study “definitively states that there is no evidence of oil operations impacting groundwater aquifers.” But environmentalist Liz Beall with Ventura-based environmental group Climate First: Replacing Oil & Gas emphasized the study’s limitations.

“Here in Ventura, the Oxnard Plain is our major hotbed of cyclic steam injection wells, and if you look at the ground there, it looks like Swiss cheese because of decades of drilling,” said Beall. “We’re counting on our state agencies to step in where the county can’t.”
 

Big oil faces tough questions, concerns over fluids migrating into rivers and canals

The vast majority of new injection well permits issued by CalGEM last year and early 2021 were for Kern County, where thousands of wells — active, inactive, and plugged — dot the landscape. It’s also where the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently grilling two of the largest oil producers in California over their injection wells’ impacts on groundwater.

In one patch of the Kern River Oil Field, Chevron is attempting to add seven additional injection wells as part of a “non-expansion” permit package application. The company received a quarter of CalGEM’s new well permits in 2020 and 2021 through early March, including 157 for underground injection wells — 23 of which were for the Kern River field.

In a letter to CalGEM dated February 17, an engineer with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board outlined several concerns the regulatory body had with the non-expansion permit package assembled by Chevron, including two active cyclic steam wells that had failed the state’s regulatory tests.

“Staff is concerned with potential surface expressions occurring and fluids migrating to the Kern River and/or the nearby canal,” said the letter, noting that wells were within several hundred feet of the water bodies.

Clay Rodgers, a Fresno-based assistant executive officer who oversees the Regional Board’s Oil Field regulatory program, said Chevron wouldn’t be able to move forward with developing the new wells until the board’s questions were resolved.

“Usually, when we have wells where there are mechanical testing integrity issues, we’ll ask, ‘Has it been fixed so it’s not a potential conduit of fluids into zones that were not intended to receive what has been injected?’” Rodgers told Capital & Main.

A spokesperson for Chevron said that the company had “provided responses to the Water Board’s initial concerns and questions and looks forward to continuing to work through the permitting process to support continued safe operation in the Kern River Oil field.”

Other filings indicate that local water bodies near Kern County oil fields may have already been polluted by injection wells.

Last August, the Central Valley water board sent an order to Aera Energy demanding technical reports for dozens of injection wells across three oil fields — Lost Hills, North Belridge and South Belridge — it suspects are leaking fluids into the Tulare aquifer, including underground sources of drinking water. A USGS study documenting the pollution noted that tainted water could be found underground as far as 1,800 feet away from the suspected problem wells.

Aera, a joint operation of ExxonMobil and Shell, received 596 permits for new wells from CalGEM last year, more than any other company, including 71 for injection wells.
 

Rodgers, who was involved in the study, said he and his team believed that Aera’s wells were “a potential source for the constituents that USGS was seeing, and [felt that] an order was appropriate in order to determine exactly what the contribution is, if any.”

Aera requested a delay of the order, which the regional board mostly denied.

In a statement to Capital & Main, a spokesperson for Aera said that while the company was working with regulators, it did not “believe that the [USGS] study provides conclusive evidence that there is contamination of the groundwater,” and accused the study’s authors of making “unfounded conclusions to link oilfield operations to well-known data that says oil field fluids are present in oilfields, because they are just that — oil fields.”

Patrick Pulupa, executive officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, defended the board’s investigatory authority as “very broad.”

“Are the discharges staying where they are supposed to stay in portions of that aquifer that we don’t expect to be used as a source of drinking water?” Pulupa said. “If those discharges are migrating, I think we’re going to force the issue requiring remedial action, we could potentially issue a clean-up and abatement order, but our first recourse would be to go to CalGEM and say, ‘Your order prescribes a certain area where [discharges] are supposed to stay, if discharge isn’t staying there, you gotta do something about it.’”

CalGEM has recently come under fire for its injection well regulatory process, which critics say is too lax and undercounts the total number of active injection wells.

An audit released last November of CalGEM’s permitting process for injection wells by the state’s Department of Finance found that the agency allowed oil companies to add clusters of new injection wells without subjecting them to full environmental reviews, in one case allowing an operator to expand a project by 640 acres and 400 new wells — including 100 injection wells.

Known as “non-expansion” projects, wells approved under these arrangements may not be reflected in the total number of permits awarded by the state for new wells, meaning that the total number of injection wells in California is likely higher than the official number maintained by CalGEM.

“Most times these projects go through and get approved without very much oversight or questioning about what the dangers of these expansions are going to be,” said Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity who is suing the state for failing to properly regulate new oil wells.

Jacob Roper, a spokesperson for CalGEM, told Capital & Main the department had implemented all “major” recommendations from the audit. Roper also said CalGEM had discontinued the use of placeholder permits, which it had used to approve injection well projects without geologic or engineering reviews.

A separate review of CalGEM’s injection well permitting process being conducted by experts at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is expected to deliver its findings in “a matter of months.”
 

Potential ban in the works

Meanwhile, a bill introduced in the state Senate in February would lead to a complete ban on injection-based oil and gas production, including hydrofracturing and cyclic steam by 2027, and waterflooding and steamflooding by 2035. The legislation would also institute a 2,500-foot “health protection zone” between wells and homes, schools and other facilities, a long sought-after goal of environmental justice advocates.

One of its sponsors, State Sen. Scott Wiener, said the impact of injection wells on water tables was “certainly one” of the impacts he was concerned with.

“We know there have been a number of studies showing that oil extraction, particularly these harsh varieties, have real health impacts on surrounding communities — we know oil extraction usually happens in lower class and working class communities, communities of color, and they cause serious health impacts in addition to having impacts on air and water.”

But Wiener noted the bill would not ban the practice of underground produced water disposal — which could be a major culprit of groundwater pollution by oil and gas activities.

From 2008 to 2018, the industry produced 1.3 trillion gallons of water in California via oil and gas extraction; as of the second quarter of 2017, 81% of produced water was injected back underground, according to a report from the environmental group Earthworks.

According to Pulupa, the Central Valley water board director, injecting produced water may pose less of a threat to groundwater supplies than other methods, such as disposing of it in unlined pits, but its full impact is still murky and presents risks.

“If you dispose enough of the produced water, it might migrate toward the valley floor, which is not a drinking water supply as of now, but certainly is water used for agricultural purposes,” Pulupa said.

Roper, the CalGEM spokesperson, said the agency is in discussions with the state water board to design a truncated environmental review process for new injection wells that have typically not been subject to them because they’re part of so-called non-expansion projects.

 

'Follow the Money': Corporations Gave $50 Million to GOP Lawmakers Behind Voter Suppression Onslaught

 

The cover of the new report from Public Citizen—titled "The Corporate Sponsors of Voter Suppression"—features a photoshopped version of an image of Georgia's Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signing that state's voter suppression bill into law last month with a painting in the background overlaid with logos of major corporate donors who have lavished campaign contributions on the GOP in recent years. (Image via Public Citizen)

Published on

Monday, April 05, 2021

 by

Common Dreams

"No matter how many PR statements Big Business puts out, its complicity with the antidemocratic forces that want to make voting harder is clear."

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer  

Since 2015, AT&T, Comcast, UnitedHealth Group, Walmart, and other big businesses have donated a combined $50 million to state Republican lawmakers who are currently supporting voter suppression bills across the United States—generous political spending at odds with recent corporate efforts to rebrand as defenders of voting rights.

A new report (pdf) released Monday morning by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen

 found that during the 2020 election cycle alone, U.S. corporations donated $22 million to

 Republican architects of voter suppression bills that are advancing through state

 legislatures nationwide.   

"AT&T [since 2015] has given the most, $811,000," Public Citizen found, citing data from The National Institute on Money in Politics. "AT&T is followed by Altria/Philip Morris, Comcast, UnitedHealth Group, Walmart, State Farm, and Pfizer. Household names that fell just out of the top 25 list... include Nationwide ($182,000), Merck ($180,000), CVS ($174,000), John Deere ($159,000), and Caterpillar ($157,000)."

"This is why you follow the money, not the good PR," Public Citizen tweeted.

The group's findings came after a number of prominent corporations—including AT&T, Comcast, and Georgia-based companies Coca-Cola and Delta—issued statements denouncing a sweeping Georgia voter suppression measure only after Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed it into law last month.

Despite vocal demands for them to speak out and use their influence to fight the bill, those companies were largely quiet as the measure made its way through Georgia's Republican-dominated legislature.

Between 2015 and 2020, according to Public Citizen, corporations donated more than $10.8 million to Georgia Republicans who are supporting the 26 voter suppression bills that have been introduced in the state's legislature this year. Corporations have also donated big to voter suppression advocates in Texas, Arizona, Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas.

"From coast to coast, politicians that Corporate America helped elect are pushing racist voter suppression laws," Rick Claypool, research director for Public Citizen's president's office and one of the authors of the new report, told Common Dreams.

"No matter how many PR statements Big Business puts out, its complicity with the anti-democratic forces that want to make voting harder is clear," Claypool added. "Corporations should keep their money out of our democracy—and Congress must put the people back in charge by swiftly passing the For The People Act."

According to the latest tally by the Brennan Center for Justice, legislators have

 introduced 361 bills with vote-restricting provisions in 47 states this year, and five have

 become law.  

In the wake of the January 6 Capitol insurrection by a mob of Trump supporters, many large corporations vowed to temporarily suspend all political giving as they faced backlash for financially supporting Republican members of Congress who helped provoke the attack with brazen lies about the 2020 presidential election.

But Public Citizen argued Monday that such face-saving efforts—as well as belated disavowals of voter suppression measures—"will amount to a meaningless gesture if corporations continue to bankroll the bills' supporters with future campaign contributions."

"The days in which corporate America can fund politicians and then claim no responsibly

 for their actions may be coming to an end," the group said. "Corporations seeking to

 demonstrate their reverence for our democracy could best do so by ending their

 attempts to influence the outcomes of elections at the federal and state levels."   

                                                                                      

Loudoun County, Montgomery County, and Alexandria Considering Plans for Fare Free Public Transit

 

April 5th, 2021

Both RideOn in Montgomery County and Alexandria DASH are considering proposals right now that would make bus transit fare free. ATU has long supported initiatives like this because they can incentive increases in ridership. Most public transit systems have low farebox recovery rates, meaning that subsidies from local, state, and federal governments are necessary to keep the system running. Many anti-public transit, pro-highway politicians frame this as a bad thing, but it ignores the fact that every person driving a personal car is receiving MASSIVE subsidies to be able to do that. They just don't happen to see that. Every time you drive on a public road or highway built by the government, that was in part thanks to the massive subsidies provided by the government to incentivize car ownership and usage. 

 

A fare free model, as those proposed in Alexandria and Montgomery County, could be good ways of incentivizing ridership to return to the system. But its not enough. Fare free proposals can't just be a one shot solution to the problem of getting people out of their cars and onto public transit. We need to not only invest enough to make up for the lack of fares, but enough to expand transit service offerings and reliability. Fare free transit is good, but this region really needs a new era of public transit funding to finally tip the scales in favor of public transit over personal automobiles. 

 

WMATA experimented with fare free transit on the bus side during the heights of the pandemic as a way to allow for exclusively rear door boarding. To read more about the ongoing discussion in Montgomery County and Alexandria, listen to the piece at Fox 5 Washington. There is an additional news story from NBC Washington worth listening to.