From the Washington Times:
A House committee has launched an investigation into whether EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law.
The science committee has asked Ms. Jackson to turn over all information related to an email account under the name of “Richard Windsor,” which is one of the aliases identified by a researcher looking into the EPA.
The committee has also asked the White House’s lawyer and EPA’s inspector general to look into the matter and report back by the end of this month, saying that the secret email accounts could have been used to keep key information from official watchdogs as well as the public.
Full story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/17/congress-demands-epas-secret-email-accounts/
And who uncovered Richard Windsor?
The researcher who uncovered the “Richard Windsor” alias email, Christopher Horner, has repeatedly battled the administration over its global warming efforts.
Go Chris!
Help him out, buy the man’s book.
Christopher Horner is author of The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information “Criminal” (Threshold, October 2012).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David Ball says:
November 18, 2012 at 7:12 pm
u.k.(us) says:
November 18, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Is that some sort of veiled threat?
======================
If you saw George Bush in the weeds ?
Looks like she didn’t Google the name “Richard Windsor” 😉
A very amusing dot-com!
u.k.(us) says:
November 18, 2012 at 8:19 pm
“Don’t mess with our girls.”
It has nothing to do with male or female. So, watcha gonna do?
u.k.(us) says:
November 18, 2012 at 8:19 pm
“our girls.”? and George Bush in the weeds? Well, that is convincing. As convincing and potent as Obama (since we’re using presidential euphemisms). 8^D.
Well, the apparent deep-rooted EPA corruption is in fitting with the administration of Richard Milhous
NixonObama…If you’re referring to Petreaus, well, the FBI knew about the affair at least since April. So she would only have to step down if she didn’t want to play ball with the White House or didn’t want to be blackmailed anymore.
But a sexual affair might get the media interested, but only if it was a distraction from more important issues, such as lying to Congress, lying to the public, etc.
My mother is a retired Learning Disabilities teacher and her school district worked with at least one local doctor who prescribed a placebo when parents asked to put their children (almost always boys) on ADHD medicine.
Even doing this, I agree that ADHD is over-diagnosed and our children over-medicated. Some of behavioral problems come from lack of parental discipline (and the school can’t enforce discipline in most cases, even if they want to), lack of structure, etc. A great deal of it is normal, but rambunctious boyhood behavior, just a you say.
@Robert A. Taylor,
You kind of missed my point as well. Corporate personhood started as a necessary legal fiction. Most of the negatives that have come out of corporate personhood stem from the fact that somewhere along the line people forgot that it was just a legal fiction.
Citizen’s United is literally a group of citizens with common ideas and beliefs. Somehow, because they grouped together, they lose their rights?
And if you’re in favor of these groups having free speech restrictions, you must also be in favor of likewise restricting the free speech of the unions as well.
more soylent green!,
I started on the corporate personhood because others were complaining about Citizen’s United and attacking corporate personhood as a means of overthrowing it. Personally I think the decision can be justified without corporate personhood on the grounds you cite.
David Ball says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:32 am
=======
Would you care to enlighten one to the meaning of your emoticon ?
Just for future reference.
MattS says:
November 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
@Robert A. Taylor,
You kind of missed my point as well.
Correct, as you explained it. I was replying to one particular post, not your previous ones, or others in this thread. For my further views keep reading.
More soylent green! says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:00 am
“… you must also be in favor of likewise restricting the free speech of the unions as well.”
Correct.
I am entirely against personhood for any entity that exists by legal fiat. I would rather see business corporations limited as they were originally as Gail has explained.
I am not against VOLUNTARY organizations spending money for political purposes, provided they are in fact absolutely voluntary, only absolutely voluntary contributions are used, and the contributions are used exclusively for the purposes for which they were donated. Also, provided it is all done entirely transparently and openly. Also, provided the total amount spent from contributions does not exceed the number of contributors times the median per capita discretionary income. Neither business corporations nor unions meet these standards.
I have problems accepting spending as speech. The only way I can even faintly find this equitable is to limit annual political spending by each citizen to no more than the median per capita discretionary income or less. That includes candidates.
I would further limit political spending to eligible voters within the district where the political issue is to be decided. No outside influence.
These would require Constitutional amendments that will never happen.
Under our current system our political system bodes fair to be dominated by giant business corporations, which, as Gail has documented, are very frequently controlled by foreigners. I entirely fail to understand how this can possibly be equitable or just, or even remotely justified morally or ethically.
Off original subject and others discussed:
Recommended read: “Bailout” by Neil Barofsky, former Special Inspector General in charge of oversight of TARP appointed by Bush and continued under Obama. Keep your blood pressure pills handy.
Barofsky is a Democrat who contributed to Obama’s first election. Here is an excerpt from the afterword, pg 234:
[emphasis in original]
@Robert A. Taylor,
Corporations ARE voluntary organizations. All the money they have has been obtained by voluntary transactions. The only organizations spending money on US political campaigns that was not voluntarily obtained are unions (mandatory member dues combined with mandatory membership) and the government itself.
As for justifying it:
Under the first amendment you have the absolute right to travel to any city in the country, stand on a street corner and yell vote John Smith for mayor. You can spend your own money to buy TV or Radio ads for the same purpose. Why should a group of individuals lose this right.
“I would further limit political spending to eligible voters within the district where the political issue is to be decided.”
Why? Those political decisions can affect people who aren’t eligible voters. Limit direct campaign contributions sure but how does it corrupt the process for someone from the next district over to come in and stand on the street corner and yell their opinion on the issue? Other than reaching a wider audience how is paid advertising (TV, radio, billboards…) any different?
Try justifying your own opinion.
The real problem isn’t speech or who is speaking. The real problem is government power. There have been many attempts in the past to limit the affect of money on US political campaigns. Every single attempt has backfired having the exact opposite effect.
The reason why is every one of those attempts increased the power of the government.
The problem with political corruption is that it always requires the willing participation of an insider. Because of this attempts to use government force to limit corruption are doomed to failure. Each faction of insiders will simply try use this to suppress their opposition and ignore corruption amongst their own members.
The monied interests spend money on corrupting the system because the government has the power to benefit them or hinder their competitors/enemies. The more power the government has the more the monied interests have to gain by corrupting the system. The more they have to gain the more they will spend on efforts to corrupt the system.
If you want to minimize political corruption, minimize the power of the government. The monied interests will stop trying to corrupt the government only when they have nothing to gain by doing so.
u.k.(us) says:
November 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Anthony or one of the mods chose to delete my further responses to you. They are wise. You get nothing from me.
MattS says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Staring with, “The real problem isn’t speech or who is speaking …” and following, I basically agree, provided we are talking about actual speech and writing, cartooning, even blogging, and so on and not enormous financial expenditures, by any entity especially business corporations owned, controlled, or greatly influenced by foreigners, and directly by those foreigners and their governments. It is a chicken and egg problem. Where do we start with big government or big business, or both simultaneously?
Please note: Throughout, my objections are to spending as speech. I believe in individual human rights. I disagree than any group, business, corporation, or organization, has any rights directly or derived from the individuals composing it. If an illegal alien wishes to speak, write, or blog about any subject – fine, provided s/he does so uncompensated and honestly. I believe all political campaigns, elections or whatever, should be conducted strictly by unpaid, uncompensated (past, present, future) volunteers from within the district where the vote will be taken or the political decision will be made.
I have a problem with this because of the poor, especially extremely poor. This is merely the best I’ve come up with to date.
As long as the spending is within the discretionary income of the great majority of U. S. citizens, I have no problem with it. Anyone who wants to actually speak, write, cartoon, blog, etc., and identifies their actual status; voting location; beliefs, and affiliations – fine. Provided they are ENTIRELY and forever uncompensated by any entity, and such activity is in no way required, directly or indirectly, of them. I am using your, “stand on a street corner” as consistent with this, so don’t take it strictly literally, as I am sure you did not mean to limit them to exactly that.
I do not use the term “propaganda” to mean lies, although it often is. I mean attempts to convince. I am writing propaganda right now.
“Corporations ARE voluntary organizations …” I disagree. Whose tax money supports the corporation, if it receives money from any government at any level? Does EVERY one of those taxpayer’s agree with the business corporation’s political ends? Whose mutual and retirement funds are used as financing? Few know where they are invested. Does EVERY one of those people agree with those political ends? Does EVERY employee agree with those ends? Does EVERY low, mid, and upper level manager agree? Does EVERY direct and indirect customer? Without these monies and people the business ceases. Does anyone except the very top management agree or even know?
Every individual involved above who disagrees’ freedom of speech and action is reduced. Is the business corporation open, honest, and transparent about its political ends and spending? If it is foreign owned, operated, controlled, or influence, is this stated in each of its propaganda pieces.
I want to limit political spending to ABSOLUTELY VOLUNTARY amounts, with ABSOLUTE transparency, of course as nearly as humanly possible. The only additional duty upon managers is a fiduciary one to stockholders. This is inconsistent with honest politics.
“Under the first amendment you have the absolute right to travel to any city in the country, stand on a street corner and yell vote John Smith for mayor.” Not absolute, but fundamentally agreed, provided they travel at their own expense and do not engage in costly propaganda campaigns, but actually “stand on a street corner”. That is actual speech, except for the travel.
The paragraph with, “how does it corrupt the process for someone from the next district over to come in and stand on the street corner and yell their opinion on the issue?” When exactly what you wrote happens, I have no dispute with it. That is not what usually happens. What happens is an outside political organization or business corporation overwhelms locals by professionally produced, expensive propaganda, the locals cannot hope to match. The same applies to legal actions. Also, they offer virtual and actual bribes. That is the justification for limiting funding to the local district. Again if an individual travels at their own expense, and in fact “stands on a street corner”, fine. Provided paid adverting is paid for by voluntary contributions, of severely limited amount per individual within the district primarily concerned – fine. District is where the issue will be voted. It can be town, county, city, state or territory, any grouping of any of these, the entire U. S.
I don’t really care whether my suggestions are completely correct. I just want to eliminate, or reduce to insignificance, the effect money has on elections, political, and court decisions; especially money coming from or controlled by non citizens, which excludes all organizations. The only exception to that rule is voluntary organization that raise money within the district for the specific purpose to be voted, and have no paid or otherwise compensated individuals involved I have no hope of doing so. Arguing here is good recreation, but will have no discernible effect, except through the butterfly effect – very unlikely.
Sorry to be so long winded and repetitive. I’m always tired by the time I get to WUWT. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
We’ve really hijacked this thread. It is headed, “EPA under investigation for skirting email transparency”.
Robert A. Taylor,
I agree it has been an interesting discussion.
The vast majority of corporations receive ZERO tax money. Your argument there applies at best to companies directly doing business with the government. I can see limiting political activity by such companies. However, by the same token public sector unions must face an equal prohibition.
” What happens is an outside political organization or business corporation overwhelms locals by professionally produced, expensive propaganda, the locals cannot hope to match. The same applies to legal actions. Also, they offer virtual and actual bribes. That is the justification for limiting funding to the local district.”
The question was how does it corrupt the process which you have not answered.
You say expensive propaganda the locals cannot hope to match. The local voters also don’t have to pay any attention to it.
Forget organizations. A single individual with deep pockets comes in and spends his own money on TV and Radio ads. How does this corrupt the process? If you do not have a direct answer to this question you have no justification for limiting the speech. No, spending isn’t speech but if you actually read the court decisions on the issue I am pretty sure that what you will find is not a statement that spending equals speech but that political speech can not be prohibited just because someone spends money to reach a wider audience than they would by standing on a street corner.
We are strictly talking about independent expenditures here. Citizen’s United does not address either legal actions or bribes so these are not in any way relevant. By the way what do you consider a virtual bribe?
The discussion seems to have strayed somewhat from e-mail transparency. : > )
I see that Fox News has picked up the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/19/house-investigates-epa-emails-agency-says-administrators-have-two-accounts/?intcmp=obinsite
@MattS
You only mentioned “Zero tax money”; any and all the other conditions apply. Any business corporation, any organization, that spends any money politically can ethically do so only if everyone providing money, goods, and services to the corporation, internally and externally, entirely voluntarily, and knowingly contributes for that purpose. But, as I think it absurd to consider a corporation or organization a person having rights, none should be engaged in politics.
Well financed political and advertising campaigns do in fact overwhelm locals, by merely nearly monopolizing the information sources. Most individuals neither can nor will take the time and effort to examine most issues thoroughly. This is especially true when one side can dominate the media, and frequently get issues voted on before the opponents can organize. Sometimes things which should be voted on are handled administratively. And, let’s not forget “the big lie” too big to be disbelieved. I do not know how old you are, or how experienced in actual politics, but this has happened many times.
Extreme notional example:
Think of a preplanned campaign; ads running half hourly on radio and TV, full pages in the newspapers, individualized letters delivered to voters considered likely sympathetic, free rides to the polls, famous personalities as advocates. On the other side trying to organize in haste; a few people going around talking to people as individuals, buying a few column inches occasionally, a few radio spots at cheap time, a few TV spots ditto, a few carpools, Joe and Jill Schmoo. Example at hand CAGW alarmists v skeptics, WUWT-TV v Al Gore’s extravaganza. David occasionally slays Goliath, but usually “the bigger they are the harder they hit”, and “money is power.”
If and only if spending on political advocacy = speech, spending cannot be limited, otherwise it can by law without violating the Constitution. What this means to me is my side must match or exceed the other side(s) in spending on political advocacy because of the two preceding paragraphs. Or, of course, be more skilled at political advocacy. I want “a level playing field”, “one man one vote” (As the old joke is, “man embracing woman.”), “equality under the law”. All are impossible as long as megabucks and gigabucks are in the game against ordinary discretionary spending.
No one HAS to pay attention to anything, including intense pain. The propaganda is organized and presented in a way to draw attention to it and immediately appeal. It is repeated and repeated. People accept it, because they are not exposed to the other side, or because the other side is not as emotionally appealing, repeated as often, or received too late. It is far harder to convince people to change from belief A to belief B, than to change from no particular belief to belief B. Please consult any good text on propaganda and advertising for more detail.
A single individual spending their own money is precisely the same. I am not limiting actual speech. I do not consider spending on political advocacy speech, or only marginally so. They can and do overwhelm and bamboozle the locals in the same manner. Please remember there are Personal Corporations, which I also find absurd. I’m old enough to remember when lawyers scorned the very thought.
To me, it is obvious the above “corrupts the process”. If you do not agree, we are at an impasse, and must agree to disagree.
“We are strictly talking about independent expenditures here”. You may have been; I’ve been writing about all expenditures, but concentrating on those from business corporations IMO absurdly considered persons with rights.
As to Citizen’s United, I know virtually nothing about it. I’ve taken a quick look at the web site and the Wikipedia entry. Please note the following is NOT a criticism of Citizen’s United. It is just the example at hand. The stated goals seem worthy. I would impose the same on all organizations, groups, and businesses doing political advocacy, including WUWT.
Where on the web site is the complete list of contributors with amounts?
Which, if any, of the contributions is more than the median per capita discretionary income?
Which ,if any, of the contributors are other tax free organizations or advocacy groups?
Which, if any, of the contributors are business corporations?
Which ,if any, of the contributions are from foreigners directly or indirectly?
Which, if any, of the contributors are non citizens?
Who is paid how much for what?
Who is paid more than the median per capita income?
Who and what outside the organization is funded, and by how much?
Which of these is paid more than the median per capita income?
Of donations, how much goes to overhead (management and self advertising included), and how much to the actual work? If any is through other organizations the amount originally donated v the amount actually directly used is the proper comparison.
What was the cost of each of those productions advertised?
Who did them?
What is the cost of the web site?
Who does the web site?
Where on the web site are the complete set of books?
Do donors have lower or higher incomes than those paid from their donations?
Get my drift? I want FULL immediate disclosure. Again, not just from Citizens United, but from every political advocacy group, and organization, especially business corporations.
“What do you consider a virtual bribe?”:
Your son needs a job, you say. Tell him to see ******. I’m sure he can do something about that.
I know the dean of admissions. I’m sure s/he’ll waive that rule.
Go see ******. I’m sure s/he’ll loan you the money.
Come up here and have your picture taken with me shaking your hand. (ride in the parade; be on the podium; etc. ad nausium.
And on the way back from the polls we’ll stop at the grocery store so you can do your shopping.
Look, we still need help with this campaign. Why don’t you come in and do keyboarding. We can’t pay you much, but every little bit helps.
You know I’m expanding my factories. This seems a prime location.
I’ve got some cheerleaders coming in to liven things up. They say they’re very friendly.
Any goods or services, of substantial value, not necessity monetarily, to the recipient not covered in law as bribery, or can be gotten away with.
Is all this ever going to happen? No. I’m a romantic idealist, but not unrealistic. Any noticeable movement in the direction indicated would be appreciated.
I’ll leave the last words to you. I probably won’t be back for a while. This has taken far too long, and far too much effort.
After all that I mess up the first paragraph. I meant to append: But, see my previous post starting with “I am not against VOLUNTARY organizations …”
Robert A. Taylor,
“Any goods or services, of substantial value, not necessity monetarily, to the recipient not covered in law as bribery”
This statement describes an empty set. All goods and services of substantial value are covered by existing bribery laws. The problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house.
Again the answer to corruption is limiting government power not limiting political speech or political spending.
Re MattS
Well, I’m back one last time. If I’m going to follow other threads and blogs I’ll have to let this go.
Not only did I leave out an important sentence last post; I misspelled “ad nauseum”. I always do if I don’t correct myself.
We’ll never convince each other. To me large scale spending is a major problem in itself; to you it isn’t.
You seem to make a lawyer’s interpretation of “substantial goods and services”; I don’t. A photograph while handshaking is illegal? It can be a VERY substantial service, if only an ego boost. Giving a $1,000 a plate dinner is illegal? It is VERY substantial service for which consideration is in fact expected. The foxes do guard the hen house, and nearly always have.
Look at my “Extreme notional example:” above; now think of Joe and Jill Shmoo et al. being overwhelmingly outspent by two parties; add being outspent by advocacy groups. How is that equitable? The only out for them is to join some well financed group, or find financing for themselves, and wait for the next vote, or political decision. In my mind, “If you adopt the methods of your enemies, you have become the enemy”. The only fair way out I see is to strictly limit individual contributions, including candidates’, and make sure they are entirely voluntary and transparent.
The most famous case is Charlie Wilson. Why should three people from New York decide who a candidate will be in a Texas Congressional District? Why should 300; 3,000; 300,000,000 people from outside that district have any say in who is elected there? It is a local issue. The Representative is elected to represent the locals.
Just as the voters can ignore the political advocacy, they can find and take in to account any issues effecting others outside the district in question. This is particularly true as long as the Internet remains at least as free and open as it is now. Why consider them too foolish, lazy, stupid, or ignorant to do so?
Good luck on reducing the size and control of Government, and getting business corporations’ personhood reinstated as a legal fiction.
Thanks for a pleasant non vitriolic discussion.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and anyone who checks this thread.