(This article is re-posted from CounterPunch.)
Tuesday’s hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations laid the groundwork for future criminal prosecutions of Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and his chief lieutenants whose reckless and self-serving actions helped to precipitate the financial crisis. Committee chairman Senator Carl Levin (a former prosecutor) adroitly managed the proceedings in a way that narrowed their scope and focused on four main areas of concern. Through persistent questioning, which bordered on hectoring, Levin was able to prove his central thesis:
1. That Goldman puts its own interests before those of its clients.
2. That Goldman knowingly misled it clients and sold them “crap” that it was betting against.
3. That Goldman made billions trading securities that pumped up the housing bubble.
4. That Goldman made money trading securities that triggered a market crash and led to the deepest recession in 80 years.
The hearings lasted for 8 hours and included interviews with seven Goldman executives. Every senator had the opportunity to make a statement and question the Goldman employees. But the day belonged to Carl Levin. Levin was well-prepared, articulate and relentless. He had a game-plan and he stuck to it. He peppered Goldman’s Blankfein with question after question like a prosecuting attorney cross-examining a witness. He never let up and never veered off topic. He knew what he wanted to achieve and he succeeded. Here’s a clip from his opening statement:
“The evidence shows that Goldman repeatedly put its own interests and profits ahead of the interests of its clients and our communities…..It profited by taking advantage of its clients’ reasonable expectation that it would not sell products that it didn’t want to succeed….
Goldman’s actions demonstrate that it often saw its clients not as valuable customers, but as objects for its own profit….Goldman documents make clear that in 2007 it was betting heavily against the housing market while it was selling investments in that market to its clients. It sold those clients high-risk mortgage-backed securities and CDOs that it wanted to get off its books in transactions that created a conflict of interest between Goldman’s bottom line and its clients’ interests.” (Senator Carl Levin’s opening statement for the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations)
Levin’s entire statement is worth reading, but these two paragraphs distill his plan for exposing Goldman. He was determined to “go small” and repeat the same points over and over again. And it worked. From a purely strategic point of view, Levin’s battleplan was flawless. The Goldman execs never knew what hit them. They swaggered into the chamber thinking they’d breeze through the hearings and have a few laughs over cocktails afterwards, and left with their heads in their hands. They were outmatched and outmaneuvered.
Senator Carl Levin:
“These findings are deeply troubling. They show a Wall Street culture that, while it may once have focused on serving clients and promoting commerce, is now all too often simply self-serving. The ultimate harm here is not just to clients poorly served by their investment bank. It’s to all of us. The toxic mortgages and related instruments that these firms injected into our financial system have done incalculable harm to people who had never heard of a mortgage-backed security or a CDO, and who have no defenses against the harm such exotic Wall Street creations can cause….
These facts end the pretense that Goldman’s actions were part of its efforts to operate as a mere “market-maker,” bringing buyers and sellers together. These short positions didn’t represent customer service or necessary hedges against risks that Goldman incurred as it made a market for customers. They represented major bets that the mortgage securities market – a market Goldman helped create – was in for a major decline. Goldman continues to deny that it shorted the mortgage market for profit, despite the evidence…
The firm cannot successfully continue to portray itself as working on behalf of its clients if it was selling mortgage related products to those clients while it was betting its own money against those same products or the mortgage market as a whole. The scope of this conflict is reflected in an internal company email sent on May 17, 2007, discussing the collapse of two mortgage-related instruments, tied to WaMu-issued mortgages, that Goldman helped assemble and sell. The “bad news,” a Goldman employee says, is that the firm lost $2.5 million on the collapse. But the “good news,” he reports, is that the company had bet that the securities would collapse, and made $5 million on that bet. They lost money on the mortgage related products they still held, and of course the clients they sold these products to lost big time. But Goldman Sachs also made out big time in its bet against its own products and its own clients.” (Sen. Carl Levin)
Levin had all the facts at his fingertips and put them to good use. Goldman’s execs were on their heels from the start and never really regained their footing. Even worse, the hearings showed that Goldman cannot be trusted. Their reputation is in ruins. Levin proved that if Goldman has junk in its portfolio, it won’t hesitate to dump it on its clients and then pass around high-fives at the prop-desk. Here’s a typical exchange between Levin and the former head of Goldman’s mortgage department, Dan Sparks:
SEN. CARL LEVIN: June 22 is the date of this e-mail. “Boy, that Timberwolf was one shitty deal.” How much of that “shitty deal” did you sell to your clients after June 22, 2007?
DAN SPARKS: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the answer to that. But the price would have reflected levels that they wanted to invest…
SEN. CARL LEVIN: Oh, of course.
DAN SPARKS: … at that time.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: But you didn’t tell them you thought it was a shitty deal.
DAN SPARKS: Well, I didn’t say that.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: Who did? Your people, internally. You knew it was a shitty deal, and that’s what your…
DAN SPARKS: I think the context, the message that I took from the e-mail from Mr. Montag, was that my performance on that deal wasn’t good.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: How about the fact that you sold hundreds of millions of that deal after your people knew it was a shitty deal? Does that bother you at all; you sold the customers something?
DAN SPARKS: I don’t recall selling hundreds of millions of that deal after that.
Levin was just as tough on Blankfein, reiterating the same question over and over again: “Is there not a conflict when you sell something to somebody, and then you bet against that same security, and you don’t disclose that to the person you’re selling it to? Do you see a problem?”
At first, Blankfein acted like he’d never considered the question before, as if “putting himself in his client’s shoes” was something that never even entered his mind. His look of utter bewilderment was revealing. Then he launched into the excuses, the evasions, and the elaborate, long-winded ruminations that one expects from schoolboys and hucksters. But Levin never gave and inch. He kept pushing until Blankfein finally gave up and responded.
“No,” he stammered, “In the context of market-making that’s not a conflict.”
Blankfein’s answer was a triumph for Levin, and he knew it. To the millions of people watching the sequence on TV, Blankfein’s denial was as good as an admission of guilt. It showed that Wall Street kingpins don’t share the same morals as everyone else. In fact, Blankfein seemed genuinely confused that morality would even be an issue. After all, it wasn’t for him. Levin covered some old ground, pointing to Goldman’s dealings with Washington Mutual’s Long Beach unit which was a “conveyor belt” for garbage subprimes which frequently blew up just months after they were issued. It’s clear that Goldman knew the mortgages were junk that were “polluting the financial system”, but that made no difference. Goldman feels that it’s responsible to its shareholders alone, not the people who bailed it out.
All in all, it was a bad day for the holding company that’s come to embody everything that’s wrong with Wall Street. Goldman entered the hearings as the most successful financial institution in the country, and left with its reputation in tatters and its future uncertain. Its CEO came across as shifty and jesuitical while his executives seemed arrogant and uncooperative. At no point during the hearings did any of the Goldman throng look at ease with themselves or their answers. They remained rigid and sullen throughout. On top of that, they were unable to defend themselves against the main charge, that they don’t mind sticking it to their clients if it means a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
The truth is, the Golden boys were handled quite capably by an elderly statesman who took them to the woodshed and gave them a good hiding. Levin’s stunning performance is likely to draw attention to the upcoming SEC proceedings and, hopefully, build momentum for more subpoenas, indictments, arrests, and long prison sentences.
Could Arizona Come to Michigan?
Last week, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed legislation into law that effectively makes racial profiling legal in her state. The Arizona Senate Bill 1070 will allow police to stop anyone if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is not in this country legally. The intent of the law is to spread a wide net to identify and arrest undocumented immigrants. It goes into effect this summer.
If one person in a car doesn’t have the correct documents, everyone in the car can be arrested. People can be arrested for “harboring” an undocumented worker, even if that worker is a member of their own family. The parents of an undocumented immigrant can be hauled off to jail for visiting in the home of their son or daughter.
And workers who do have the correct ID can be arrested for simply not carrying their papers at all times. Any Latino/a living in Arizona will have zero margin for error about forgetting their papers when taking a walk around the neighborhood.
Recently GRIID cross-posted an article that includes information about groups attempting to ensure this law will not stand—as it should not. But now that the governor has signed it into law, it may take months, if not years, to challenge it. In the meantime, the law will stand.
And with the Michigan Tea Party loudly demanding “militarized borders” and various gubernatorial candidates here in Michigan pandering to this audience, it begs the question—could something like SB 1070 happen here?
First, remember that we also have what could be represented as an “unsecured” or permeable border. Traffic moves between the U.S. and Canada with relative ease. Car traffic is monitored; private boat traffic operates mainly on a trust system. It’s the perfect alarmist vehicle to make the case for harsher immigration laws.
Next, as an example, take a look at the most likely Republican candidate for the run for governor: Pete Hoekstra. As a U.S. Representative, Hoekstra has a well-documented voting record. It’s clear what kind of stance on immigrants he would bring to the governor’s office through these examples:
•He voted on legislation requiring hospitals to turn in undocumented immigrants who came in for emergency treatment. The law would have also arranged for transportation of immigrants without papers back to their native countries for treatment—in effect, a new deportation law packaged into the bill.
•He voted for building a $7 billion fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. He also voted for more security personnel and surveillance.
•He voted to allow vigilante Minutemen to operate in secrecy, without informing the Mexican government about the placement of armed volunteers along the U.S.-Mexican border.
•He’s attempted twice to get legislation through Congress making English the sole official language of the U.S. Both times, he co-sponsored the bills.
Pete Hoekstra has been endorsed by the USBC, a group that says its work is “to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and…to preserve our nation’s language, culture and heritage for the next generations.”
Hoekstra has also been given a 100% approval rating from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You won’t find a word of any of this on Hoekstra’s official campaign site. Other candidates are equally silent on immigration. The pistol-packing Mike Bouchard doesn’t even list it as an issue on his site, where taxes and crime fighting are emphasized. Andy Dillon speaks mainly to education and jobs. Virgil Bernero’s focus seems to be, as it has been for some time, on strengthening unions and protecting workers’ rights. Rick Snyder’s issues section only outlines his 10-point plan for restoring Michigan’s economy. Mike Cox is spending both his Tea Party time and website promotion on his effort to overturn the new federal health care reform in his role as Attorney General.
Each of these candidates is going to present himself in a filtered light that will attract the maximum number of voters. Their own PR is not going to offer hard-line statements that can be used against them in the media.
Clearly, we’re not going to get the depth of information we need from the Press or other local news sources in West Michigan for this election. So it’s up to each individual voter to get educated on every issue that these candidates will address as governor. That includes, at this crucial point in our history, a solid understanding of their views on immigration. We don’t want to end up with a Jan Brewer wannabe in the Governor’s Mansion and racist Arizona-style legislation in Michigan.
Media Bites – Pepsi: One Tribe
This week’s Media Bites takes a look at a new marketing campaign by Pepsi called the Refresh Project. Pepsi is attempting to position themselves as a company that breaks down barriers and brings people together. The commercial uses a new song by the Black Eyed Peas, One Tribe, to try to make us feel that the company cares about people and the Planet. In the end, the commercial is just another ploy to get us to buy their product and to not think about what harm the company does around the world.
A New Climate Movement in Bolivia
(This article by Naomi Klein is re-posted from ZNet.)
It was 11 am and Evo Morales had turned a football stadium into a giant classroom, marshaling an array of props: paper plates, plastic cups, disposable raincoats, handcrafted gourds, wooden plates and multicolored ponchos. All came into play to make his main point: to fight climate change, “we need to recover the values of the indigenous people.”
Yet wealthy countries have little interest in learning these lessons and are instead pushing through a plan that at its best would raise average global temperatures 2 degrees Celsius. “That would mean the melting of the Andean and Himalayan glaciers,” Morales told the thousands gathered in the stadium, part of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. What he didn’t have to say is that the Bolivian people, no matter how sustainably they choose to live, have no power to save their glaciers. Bolivia’s climate summit has had moments of joy, levity and absurdity. Yet underneath it all, you can feel the emotion that provoked this gathering: rage against helplessness.
It’s little wonder. Bolivia is in the midst of a dramatic political transformation, one that has nationalized key industries and elevated the voices of indigenous peoples as never before. But when it comes to Bolivia’s most pressing, existential crisis—the fact that its glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, threatening the water supply in two major cities—Bolivians are powerless to do anything to change their fate on their own.
That’s because the actions causing the melting are taking place not in Bolivia but on the highways and in the industrial zones of heavily industrialized countries. In Copenhagen, leaders of endangered nations like Bolivia and Tuvalu argued passionately for the kind of deep emissions cuts that could avert catastrophe. They were politely told that the political will in the North just wasn’t there. More than that, the United States made clear that it didn’t need small countries like Bolivia to be part of a climate solution. It would negotiate a deal with other heavy emitters behind closed doors, and the rest of the world would be informed of the results and invited to sign on, which is precisely what happened with the Copenhagen Accord. When Bolivia and Ecuador refused to rubber-stamp the accord, the US government cut their climate aid by $3 million and $2.5 million, respectively. “It’s not a free-rider process,” explained US climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing. (Anyone wondering why activists from the global South reject the idea of “climate aid” and are instead demanding repayment of “climate debts” has their answer here.) Pershing’s message was chilling: if you are poor, you don’t have the right to prioritize your own survival.
When Morales invited “social movements and Mother Earth’s defenders…scientists, academics, lawyers and governments” to come to Cochabamba for a new kind of climate summit, it was a revolt against this experience of helplessness, an attempt to build a base of power behind the right to survive.
The Bolivian government got the ball rolling by proposing four big ideas: that nature should be granted rights that protect ecosystems from annihilation (a “Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights”); that those who violate those rights and other international environmental agreements should face legal consequences (a “Climate Justice Tribunal”); that poor countries should receive various forms of compensation for a crisis they are facing but had little role in creating (“Climate Debt”); and that there should be a mechanism for people around the world to express their views on these topics (“World People’s Referendum on Climate Change”).
The next stage was to invite global civil society to hash out the details. Seventeen working groups were struck, and after weeks of online discussion, they met for a week in Cochabamba with the goal of presenting their final recommendations at the summit’s end. The process is fascinating but far from perfect (for instance, as Jim Shultz of the Democracy Center pointed out, the working group on the referendum apparently spent more time arguing about adding a question on abolishing capitalism than on discussing how in the world you run a global referendum). Yet Bolivia’s enthusiastic commitment to participatory democracy may well prove the summit’s most important contribution.
That’s because, after the Copenhagen debacle, an exceedingly dangerous talking point went viral: the real culprit of the breakdown was democracy itself. The UN process, giving equal votes to 192 countries, was simply too unwieldy—better to find the solutions in small groups. Even trusted environmental voices like James Lovelock fell prey: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war,” he told the Guardian recently. “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” But in reality, it is such small groupings—like the invitation-only club that rammed through the Copenhagen Accord—that have caused us to lose ground, weakening already inadequate existing agreements. By contrast, the climate change policy brought to Copenhagen by Bolivia was drafted by social movements through a participatory process, and the end result was the most transformative and radical vision so far.
With the Cochabamba summit, Bolivia is trying to take what it has accomplished at the national level and globalize it, inviting the world to participate in drafting a joint climate agenda ahead of the next UN climate gathering, in Cancún. In the words of Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solón, “The only thing that can save mankind from a tragedy is the exercise of global democracy.” If he is right, the Bolivian process might save not just our warming planet but our failing democracies as well. Not a bad deal at all.
Last night, an estimated 500 people showed up at Ottawa Hills High School to listen and to be heard on a variety of proposals being put forth by the Grand Rapids Public School Board and Superintendent Taylor.
As we have reported before, students and parents are upset with proposals to have more online classes, which would eliminate some teaching positions and budget cuts which would result in art & music programs being reduced.
Upon arriving to Ottawa Hills High School people were greeted by people passing out informational flyers, stickers and students holding signs and playing instruments to draw attention to the proposed cuts to art & music.
When the board meeting finally got under way, the board President right away began defending the direction that the current administration was going in and even referred to the GR Public Schools as a role model for how schools can transition in the current economic climate.
The Agenda
After four area students were recognized for scholarship awards they had won the board dealt with the agenda at hand. First, was the proposal to extend a contract with Dean Transportation, which provides busing services ever since the school board eliminated the busing provided by the school itself. There were two comments on this matter, one in favor and one against. Superintendent Taylor encouraged the board members to vote for the contract extension, but offered up no convincing evidence for why the board should support the contract extension. The measure passed with only one no vote.
Another items on the agenda had to do with grant money that was being offered by the Kellogg Foundation, but was tied to the online learning proposal that was also put forth in recent weeks. Again Taylor encouraged board members to support the Kellogg Foundation grant money, in part, because it could lead to more money from Kelloggs and maybe even the DeVos Foundation.
Taylor then invited 6 of the districts principals to speak to the benefits of the online learning, which was referred to all night as a blended educational system. The school principals all endorsed the proposal and communicated that students, once given proper information were also behind the model.
School Board member Dr. Baker asked how the students were feeling about this blended system and how the principals were able to assess student input. One principal did admit that some of the students do miss the interaction with other students, but they felt that the overall assessment was positive. The board ended up voting 6 – 3 in favor of the Kellogg Foundation grant.
Public Comment
When it came time for public comment, the board first instructed those in attendance that they should be respectful and refrain from having any reaction to comments that were made. This statement was greeted by lots of jeers from the crowd. The school board also reduced public comment from 3 minutes to 2 minutes because there were so many people who had signed up to speak.
In all, 27 people got up to address the school board. Many parents expressed concerns about proposed cuts to music and art programs. On person said that art fosters imagination and that imagination was an important part of education. Another part talked about how music not only increases the capacity for students to learn, “music can make us better people.”
The issue that most people addressed was the online education proposal. Parents, teachers and students all agreed that this was a bad idea. People spoke to the importance of having education being a relational experience, where teachers and students can engage each other. Teachers can identify the needs of each individual student and find ways to reach each student, a quality that no computer can provide. Some parents spoke to how children’s lives are already so technology focused that they did not want online classes to add to the hyper-digital pressures that students already face in a media saturated world.
However, some of the strongest statements and the ones that got the loudest applause came from several students. The students spoke eloquently and passionately about the desire to have teachers in the classroom and to have the opportunity to take art and music classes. One high school student even said that the online classes are not very challenging and are set up in such a way that it makes it easy for students to cheat.
By the end of the night over two dozen people addressed the school board, but it was clear from the applause throughout the night that those in attendance did not support the proposals being put forth by Superintendent Taylor. The overwhelming critical comments from the community seemed to resonate with board members Baker and Hinkle, both of which expressed deep concerns over the online class proposal and the urgent need for the school administration to truly listen to the concerns of the public.
Here is some additional comments by students we spoke with before the School Board meeting.
The Press on Campaign Finance rules for Michigan
Today, the Grand Rapids Press ran as a front-page story about what the new Election Campaign Finance rules will mean in Michigan. The article begins by talking about the history of attacks ads that we have all come to know during the election season.
The Press mentions the Supreme Court decision in October of 2009, which will provide private entities greater opportunities to inject money into the political process. However, the Press does not include any of the details of that Supreme Court decision and what the potential harm it will do to the democratic process.
The article cites several sources, including the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the state chapter of the AFL-CIO, both of which will no doubt use the opportunity to increase funding for political ads and other campaign financing tactics. Both the Michigan Chamber and unions that are part of the AFL-CIO have been amongst the top donors to Michigan campaigns, as is noted in the 2008 report put out by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network (MCFN).
The Press does cite Rich Robinson with the MCFN, but also Craig Ruff with the Lansing-based Public Sector Consultants. Both Robinson and Ruff express concerns about what Michigan Secretary of State Terry Land will do in regards to how Michigan will adopt the new Campaign Finance ruling, although Ruff seems more optimistic that Land will “will err on the side of disclosure.”
The Press article also does not discuss Land’s history as chairperson for previous election campaign committees, nor the potential conflict of interest as a running mate with gubernatorial candidate Mike Bouchard. Since there are fewer campaign finance restrictions placed on private donors, does Land’s position as a candidate put her in conflict with decisions she has to make about how the State will deal with campaign finance rules? The Press article states that Land will announce her decision within the next week.
Anti-Reform Front Group Wears a Populist Mask
(This article is re-posted from the Center for Media & Democracy.)
A corporate front group with the populist-sounding name “Stop Too Big To Fail” (STBTF) is running a $1.6 million TV advertising campaign designed to appeal to liberal/progressives and get them to advocate against financial reform legislation currently under consideration in Congress.
The ads target Senate Democrats in three states and ask viewers to tell their senators to “vote against this ‘phony financial reform’ ” and “support real reform, stop ‘too big to fail.’ ” STBTF has also put out a blitz of opinion columns on left-leaning Web sites. TPMMuckraker, which researched STBTF, says it has every indication of being an “astroturf operation funded by corporate interests to give the appearance of grassroots opposition to reform.” The group’s president is Robert K. Johnson, a serial astroturf group operator who also heads the corporate front Consumers for Competitive Choice (C4CC).
C4CC was formerly known as “Consumers for Cable Choice,” a front group funded by big telecom companies like Verizon and SBC, which fought to deregulate the cable industry. STBTF also has links to the DCI Group, a well-known Washington, D.C. Republican lobbying and astroturfing business. STBTF sought the support a prominent former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Simon Johnson (no relation to Robert K. Johnson), who now advocates breaking up big banks.
At first Simon Johnson agreed, and STBTF posted a picture of him on their Web site, but when Johnson realized the group was really pushing an anti-reform message, he demanded they stop using his name and likeness, and STBTF was forced to pull all references to S. Johnson from its Web site.
Here is one of the bogus ads the group was using:
Arizona’s Law May Spark Pro-Immigrant Movement
(This article by Valeria Fernández is re-posted from Common Dreams.)
After a week of ongoing protests and acts of civil disobedience, Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 making Arizona the first state in the nation to consider it a crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant.
The new law would go into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, which is expected to adjourn in the coming weeks.
“I’m disappointed, but not surprised. I believe she’s taken this action for political purposes because she is running for election. It is a poor reason to sign unconstitutional legislation,” said Rep. Kirsten Sinema, D-Phoenix. “The silver lining is that we are going to sue and we are going to win.”
Several legal challenges to keep the legislation from taking effect are in the works by the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON).
“Arizona would have the same place in history as South Africa,” said Salvador Reza, organizer for the PUENTE movement, which advocates for human rights, comparing the new law to apartheid.
But the passage of the Arizona law may also have ignited the pro-immigration reform movement. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, D-Illinois, is expected to hold a rally in Arizona on Sunday.
“We hope President Obama can join us at the rally to announce swift action the federal government will take to protect the civil rights of its residents,” said Pablo Alvarado, the executive director of NDLON.
President Obama criticized the Arizona bill earlier today, saying it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” He called on Congress to enact immigration reform, saying that without a federal overhaul of immigration laws, “we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.”
Opponents of the bill are holding ongoing protests and planning economic boycotts of the state convention center.
Since early Friday, thousands of people have gathered outside the state capitol, peacefully protesting the bill with signs reading “Veto SB 1070” and “We are human.” A great majority of them are students between the ages of 14 and 17 who walked out spontaneously from school after news of the protest spread through text-messaging.
Supports of the bill numbered about a dozen.
There has been a strong police presence and some activists are concerned that the governor’s signing of the bill could lead to acts of violence.
Before a crowd of peaceful protesters at the capitol, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon spoke passionately against SB 1070 and announced that he would seek approval from the council to seek to stop the bill’s implementation through a lawsuit.
SB 1070, also known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act,” would allow police officers to arrest a person based on “reasonable suspicion ” that he or she is an undocumented immigrant. Police departments could face lawsuits by individuals who believe they are not enforcing the law.
“This bill criminalizes people who appear to be Latino and puts them at risk for racial profiling and prosecution and harassment in the state,” said Sinema.
“There’s no protection in this bill for people who are witnesses or victims of crimes,” she added. “They’ll be less likely to work with police to keep the community safe.”
SB 1070 would also impose penalties for transporting or harboring an undocumented immigrant, which could include family members.
“This is going to break our families apart,” said Estela, an undocumented immigrant who has two children born in the United States. “My older son will want to stay, but we may have to leave.”
The law would have a devastating impact on undocumented students who were brought to the United States when they were very young, said Carmen Cornejo, executive director of CADENA, a group that advocates for passage of the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for high school graduates who attend college or serve in the military.
“Even though this is going on, we can’t stop going to school, we can’t stop going to work, we still have a life,” said Dulce, a 25-year-old undocumented immigrant who has an engineering degree. “And we shall not fear.”
Dulce says it has been a difficult week for her family as they waited to hear whether the governor would sign the bill.
“It’s going to be another obstacle,” said the student. “We’ll have to be like we always are, extra careful. They’re not supposed to stop you if you don’t do anything wrong,” said the student. “As an Arizonan and as an undocumented immigrant, I’ll take precautions.”
Dulce planned to attend a protest all day Friday against the bill’s passage.
For immigrant communities, SB 1070 might be the tipping point for action and mobilization after state voters and conservative legislators have passed a series of laws aimed at hardening social conditions in the state to encourage immigrants to leave.
“We’re not going to give up,” said Estela. “We hope that something will be done in the next 90 days.”
Some of the Arizona laws have resulted in U.S.-citizen children going without health care benefits and a number of raids conducted by Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies that have terrorized immigrant communities.
A coalition of businesses and religious leaders has warned that the impact of the new measure could severely damage the Arizona economy.
“SB 1070 is tearing our state into two. It humiliates us into the eyes of America and threatens our economic recovery,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon during a speech on Thursday when he urged the governor to veto SB 1070.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, the author of the bill, said the legislation would have the opposite effect. He believes the new legislation will lead immigrants to leave Arizona, causing the state to save money in services it currently provides to the children of undocumented immigrants at schools and hospitals. He has said that states have to take the matter into their own hands in absence of federal enforcement.
The recent death of a rancher on the border connected to violence in the area gave momentum to SB 1070.
Pearce said the legislation would take the handcuffs off law enforcement but allowing them to inquire about a person’s immigration status and would result in a number of immigrants choosing to leave the state.
Ilario and his wife, both undocumented immigrants from Guerrero, Mexico who have lived in the United States for the last 12 years, joined 30 of their neighbors to walk the streets in protest, showing that they refused to remain in the shadows. Ilario knows proponents of the bill want he and his family to leave Arizona, but he is not ready to do that.
“There’s too much at stake for us,” said Ilario in Spanish. “Aquí estamos y no nos vamos.”
US Military tries to cover up civilian deaths in Afghanistan
The anti-war group Rethink Afghanistan has just posted a new video and a petition to expose the deception of the US military in Afghanistan.
“U.S. and allied special forces in Afghanistan killed 2 civilian men, 2 pregnant women and a teenage girl in Gardez, and they then tried to hide their crime. We can’t let them get away with a cover-up.
In this night raid on Feb. 12, special-forces mistakenly attacked a baby shower. Instead of getting immediate medical treatment for the wounded, special forces personnel focused on destroying evidence, digging the bullets out of the bodies.
Gen. McChrystal’s P.R. team fought for weeks to obscure the truth. They lied about finding the women dead when they arrived. They smeared journalists who questioned their story. On April 4, they admitted to killing all of the innocent victims, including the women.
After this outrageous behavior, McChrystal says we should trust his forces to investigate themselves. If you think it is ludicrous for the military to investigate themselves, then please sign on to this petition, invite others to do the same and watch this important video.
Energy companies aren’t green, they give green
A day after celebrating the 40th anniversary of Earth Day it is important to take a look at the efforts by big energy companies and so-called alternative energy companies to influence candidates through campaign donations and lobbying.
The Center for Responsive Politics provides us with good data on both counts. Since 1990, energy companies have contributed half a billion dollars to candidates, with Republicans receiving about twice as much as Democrats. Over $77 million was given to candidates in the 2008 elections and just over $27 million has already reached candidates in the 2010 election cycle.
Here is a list of the top 20 energy companies and their campaign contributions.
| Rank | Organization | Amount |  Dems |
 Repubs |
Source Indivs PACs Soft $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn | $770,650 | 53% | 47% | |
| 2 | Exelon Corp | $566,448 | 66% | 34% | |
| 3 | Koch Industries | $539,900 | 19% | 81% | |
| 4 | Southern Co | $532,169 | 46% | 54% | |
| 5 | American Electric Power | $477,085 | 58% | 42% | |
| 6 | Duke Energy | $468,160 | 52% | 48% | |
| 7 | Exxon Mobil | $436,294 | 14% | 85% | |
| 8 | Dominion Resources | $431,886 | 62% | 37% | |
| 9 | Chevron Corp | $402,159 | 17% | 83% | |
| 10 | EnergySolutions Inc | $361,800 | 29% | 71% | |
| 11 | Energy Future Holdings Corp | $359,866 | 50% | 50% | |
| 12 | FPL Group | $358,096 | 47% | 53% | |
| 13 | Edison International | $356,800 | 64% | 36% | |
| 14 | Valero Energy | $338,800 | 19% | 81% | |
| 15 | Edison Electric Institute | $325,373 | 63% | 37% | |
| 16 | Marathon Oil | $318,670 | 23% | 77% | |
| 17 | Progress Energy | $304,770 | 53% | 47% | |
| 18 | Entergy Corp | $287,365 | 67% | 33% | |
| 19 | Occidental Petroleum | $266,250 | 23% | 77% | |
| 20 | DTE Energy | $250,376 | 65% | 35% |
Some of the major recipients in Congress of the energy companies campaign contributions in 2010 have been Senators Murkowski, Lincoln, Dorgan, and Reid. In the House of Representatives the list includes Boucher, Barton, Edwards, Cantor and Stover.
Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow has received $71,096 from energy companies so far in 2010 and there is no data for Senator Levin. Congressman Ehlers has received a total of $9,300 this year.
On the lobbying front, big oil leads all energy sectors followed by electric utilities. You can see from the chart the gradual increase in lobby spending by this sector, with figures over $400 million in 2009.
The number of lobbyist for 2009 in the energy sector was 2,302 and has remained over 2,000 since 2002.
