Was 2017 the Year that the Tide finally Turned against Fossil Fuel Projects?

Resilience

Building a world of resilient communities

Was 2017 the Year that the Tide finally Turned against Fossil Fuel Projects?

By Susanne Dhaliwal, originally  published by Open Democracy  December 21, 2017

The end of 2017 saw a rapid escalation of big divestment announcements, including from global insurer Axa. 2018 brings more opportunity – so long as campaigning prioritises the voices of those most impacted by climate change.

Last week AXA announced its sell off of €700m of tar sands investments from its balance sheets, covering 25 tar sands companies and 3 major pipelines projects. Thomas Buberl, the company’s chief executive, called the projects “not sustainable and therefore also not insurable.”

This was a significant win for activists like the UK Tar Sands Network and the Indigenous Environmental Network, who have been calling on financial institutions to end investments in the tar sands projects and pipelines since 2009, and who have most recently taken their campaigning efforts to the insurance industry.

The AXA decision comes just weeks after BNP Paribas broke the news that it will no longer finance new shale or tar sands projects, nor work with companies that mainly focus on those resources. Last Friday, Norway’s largest life insurer, KLP announced that it would exclude from its portfolio any firms that derive 30 percent or more of revenues from the extraction of tar sands. In the same week the World Bank announced it would cease financing upstream oil and gas after 2019.

It’s welcome news. Based on the financial risks, climate impacts and indigenous rights violations, we have seen a significant shift in financial institutions backing fossil fuels. The Bank of England now recognizes the monetary risks associated with climate change and is advising the central banks and governments to get out of highly polluting fuels due to the pending carbon bubble and the bad business associated with ‘extreme’ energy extraction. As a result BP, Shell, Exxon and others have pulled out of major tar sands projects and pipelines.

And now the insurance industry is beginning to act more meaningfully. As early as the 1970s, the insurance industry acknowledged the risk of climate change and the need for the sector to take meaningful action. Insurers have already seen the costs of climate related catastrophes and extreme weather events skyrocket, compelling them to be among some of the first movers divesting from coal and also develop policies to stop the underwriting of new fossil fuel projects. But they have massive holdings in fossil fuels. And so they need public pressure to push them to divest.

So despite last week’s news, we must be careful not to pop those champagne corks too fast. Significant action and commitment has yet to be seen by Asian and American insurers. Moreover, regenerative steps need to be taken to ensure that the communities whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels benefit from the transition to the clean energy economy. Simply put, who will be responsible for the massive clean-ups of stranded projects and direct the green energy transition?

Activists say “no thanks” to greenwash

Indigenous Climate Action’s bold stance on Aviva points the way to a breakthrough on this front.

The Canadian-based Indigenous Climate Action (ICA) group is led by Eriel Deranger, one of the foremost leaders driving the discussion about divestment and just transition. ICA is a new organisation that brings indigenous voices and solutions to the climate movement.

ICA’s groundbreaking work caught the eye of the Aviva Community Fund who awarded them a $150,000.00 cash prize in early December.

But ICA found out that Aviva plc – Aviva Canada’s parent company – held major passive investments (over half a billion USD) in corporations operating in Alberta’s tar sands, including Teck Resource Ltd (Frontier Open pit mine), Encana, Exxon, Imperial, Suncor, Chevron, Cenovus, Kinder Morgan (TransMountain pipeline), TransCanada (Keystone XL pipeline), and Enbridge (Line 3 pipeline).

So ICA had only one option, to reject the prize.

Aviva invests in projects that are in violation of international human rights and Indigenous rights standards… Aviva needs to ensure they are on the right side of history, and to do that, they must divest from projects that violate our rights and threaten our survival,” Spokesperson Kanahus Manuel commented.

The Canadian government has done little to recognise indigenous land titles. Tar sands expansion continues at an alarming rate, with even more pipelines being approved. We cannot rely on Prime Minister Trudeau’s support to join the climate action force anytime soon.

Odd as it may seem, ICA’s rejection of the 150K award has opened an unlikely opportunity – to have a meaningful conversation with Aviva.

“ICA turning down the Aviva award drives home the urgency of the financial industry cutting ties with extreme fossil fuels. ICA’s bold stand should prompt insurers, investors and banks to drop tar sands and coal across the board and ensure their policies and practices fully respect Indigenous rights,” said Ruth Breech, Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network.

Those impacted by climate change must be at the forefront of solutions

But it is not simply enough to applaud ICA for its bold stance. We need a rapid shift in funding structures in the non-profit world to support groups like ICA who have taken a moral stand against financial institutions like Aviva. We need to ensure that the people most impacted by climate change are also at the forefront and are involved in developing climate solutions. And we need to widen the community of actors in the divestment debate, as non-profits can act as gatekeepers to key corporate relations leaving out those most impacted by these decisions.

AXA’s new ground-breaking policy shows globally that tar sands and coal are becoming uninsurable, uninvestable and eventually unbankable. We also hope to hear from Aviva that they will be dropping their tar sands investments and have a firm commitment to stop underwriting future projects once we renew engagement in the new year.

2018 is going to be another massive year for divestment with an imminent decision from the Norwegian Wealth Fund to divest $35 billion from oil shares, from corporations such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Chevron and Norway’s own oil giant, Statoil.

All of these decisions and ‘wins’ need to be grounded in an intersectional divestment movement that takes the time to think about the reinvestment strategies, that is twinned with a just transition model and opens up the seats at the table for dialogue with those most impacted by climate change and holding the climate solutions. If we can do this, 2018 is going to be an incredible year for our movements and hope for the climate.

Teaser Photo credit: Former US tar sands test pit site, Flickr/BeforeItStarts, Creative Commons. 

At least we didn’t waste money on food stamps, right?

Disclose.tv

Join us: Disclose.tv

MILITARY BONEYARD

Join us: Disclose.tv

Posted by Disclose.tv on Monday, December 18, 2017

Why Orrin Hatch is Utahn of the Year

The Salt Lake Tribune

Tribune Editorial: Why Orrin Hatch is Utahn of the Year

Tribune Editorial: Why Orrin Hatch is Utahn of the Year(AndrŽ Chung | special to The Salt Lake Tribune) Senator Orrin Hatch is the senior senator from Utah, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and President pro tempore of the United States Senate.

December 25, 2017

These things are often misunderstood. So, lest our readers, or the honoree himself, get the wrong impression, let us repeat the idea behind The Salt Lake Tribune’s Utahn of the Year designation.

The criteria are not set in stone. But this year, as many times in the past, The Tribune has assigned the label to the Utahn who, over the past 12 months, has done the most. Has made the most news. Has had the biggest impact. For good or for ill.

The selection of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch as the 2017 Utahn of the Year has little to do with the fact that, after 42 years, he is the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history, that he has been a senator from Utah longer than three-fifths of the state’s population has been alive.

It has everything to do with recognizing:

  • Hatch’s part in the dramatic dismantling of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.
  • His role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in passing a major overhaul of the nation’s tax code.
  • His utter lack of integrity that rises from his unquenchable thirst for power.

Each of these actions stands to impact the lives of every Utahn, now and for years to come. Whether those Utahns approve or disapprove of those actions has little consequence in this specific recognition. Only the breadth and depth of their significance matters.

As has been argued in this space before, the presidential decision to cut the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in half and to slash the size of the brand new Bears Ears National Monument by some 90 percent has no constitutional, legal or environmental logic.

To all appearances — appearances promoted by Hatch — this anti-environmental, anti-Native American and, yes, anti-business decommissioning of national monuments was basically a political favor the White House did for Hatch. A favor done in return for Hatch’s support of the president generally and of his tax reform plan in particular.

And, on the subject of tax reform: For a very long time indeed, Hatch has said that his desire to stick around long enough to have a say in what indeed would be a long-overdue overhaul of the nations’ Byzantine tax code is the primary reason he has run for re-election time after time.

Last week, he did it.

The tax bill that passed the House and the Senate and was signed into law by the president Friday is being praised for bringing corporate tax rates in line with the nation’s post-industrial competitors and otherwise benefiting corporations and investors in a way that backers see as a boost to the economy, even as opponents vilify it for favoring the rich and adding to the federal budget deficit.

No matter who turns out to be right about that argument, the fact remains that tax reform has been talked about and talked about for decades and only now has anything been done. And Hatch, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has his fingerprints all over it.

But perhaps the most significant move of Hatch’s career is the one that should, if there is any justice, end it.

The last time the senator was up for re-election, in 2012, he promised that it would be his last campaign. That was enough for many likely successors, of both parties, to stand down, to let the elder statesman have his victory tour and to prepare to run for an open seat in 2018.

Clearly, it was a lie. Over the years, Hatch stared down a generation or two of highly qualified political leaders who were fully qualified to take his place, Hatch is now moving to run for another term — it would be his eighth — in the Senate. Once again, Hatch has moved to freeze the field to make it nigh unto impossible for any number of would-be senators to so much as mount a credible challenge. That’s not only not fair to all of those who were passed over. It is basically a theft from the Utah electorate.

It would be good for Utah if Hatch, having finally caught the Great White Whale of tax reform, were to call it a career. If he doesn’t, the voters should end it for him.

Common is the repetition of the catchphrase that Hatch successfully used to push aside three-term Sen. Frank Moss in this first election in, egad, 1976.

What do you call a senator who’s served in office for 18 years? You call him home.”

Less well known is a bit of advice Hatch gave to Capitol Hill interns in 1983.

“You should not fall in love with D.C.” he admonished them. “Elected politicians shouldn’t stay here too long.”

If only he had listened to his own advice.

The Salt Lake Tribune Letter: It’s clear Hatch has sold his soul and lost his way

Letter: It's clear Hatch has sold his soul and lost his way(AndrŽ Chung | special to The Salt Lake Tribune) Flanked by his security staff on the left and Matt Whitlock, his communications director on the right, Sen. Hatch makes his way to a luncheon in Washington D.C. on December 21, 2017. Senator Orrin Hatch is the senior senator from Utah, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and President pro tempore of the United States Senate.

By Dave Klock,  The Public Forum      December 25, 2017

Sen. Hatch, what will you try to sell next just to get re-elected, the Grand Canyon? Perhaps the Mormon Temple? It’s clear to almost everyone here (Republicans, independents and Democrats alike) that you’ve sold your soul and lost your way.

You have forgotten that you work for the hard-working people of Utah and not the interests of big corporations and a president with questionable ethical standards. Your choice to stir the political pot at a time when our country needs real leadership is both sad and embarrassing.

Perhaps you are just too old and out of touch, as many say, or maybe you’ve been away in Washington, D.C., for too long. Either way, I look forward to voting for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary to rid us of a representative who no longer understands our values. No matter how a person feels about the national monuments issue, rest assured that everyone can see through your thinly veiled ruse to save your own political skin at our expense.

We deserve better. Your time is up. Thanks for nothing, Sen. Hatch.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

RELATED ARTICLES

Jennifer Rubin: Now we know why Republicans are attacking the FBI

Dave Klock, Salt Lake City

Miami is on the verge of disaster!

 

WATCH and find out why Miami is on the verge of disaster. Investigated by Jack Black.

Read more: ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-flooding

via Years of Living Dangerously #YEARSproject

WATCH and find out why Miami is on the verge of disaster. Investigated by Jack Black.Read more: ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-floodingvia Years of Living Dangerously #YEARSproject

Posted by EcoWatch on Sunday, December 24, 2017

This solar and water-powered trash cleaner removes trash from rivers before it gets into the ocean.

CNN

December 25, 2017

This solar and water-powered trash cleaner removes trash from rivers before it gets into the ocean. The trash collected is then incinerated and used to power homes http://cnn.it/2zqeL4J

Meet Mr. Trash Wheel — a solar powered trash remover

This solar and water-powered trash cleaner removes trash from rivers before it gets into the ocean. The trash collected is then incinerated and used to power homes http://cnn.it/2zqeL4J

Posted by CNN on Sunday, December 24, 2017

5 ways Donald Trump has failed to ‘drain the swamp’

Yahoo News

5 ways Donald Trump has failed to ‘drain the swamp’

David Knowles       December 22, 2017

News video: Did Trump 'Drain The Swamp'?

In the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repurposed a well-worn catchphrase at a Wisconsin rally that not only resonated with his base of supporters but seemed to sum up his outsider White House bid: “Drain the swamp.”

One year into his first term, however, Trump’s pledge to root out Washington corruption has not exactly yielded the quick and easy results his slogan promised. Perhaps as a result, a new poll finds a sharp jump over the past 12 months in the number (44 percent) of Americans who think that most or all of the officials in the current administration are corrupt.

Here are five ways in which the Washington swamp has survived, and even thrived, under Trump.
The lobbying boom

A man holds up a “Drain the Swamp in Washington DC” sign as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump attends a campaign event at the airport in Kinston, N.C., Oct. 26, 2016. (Photo: Carlo Allegri/Reuters)

Trump’s swamp-draining project involved a five-point plan for scaling back the influence of lobbyists. So far, the president has made good on just one of those proposals: an executive order in January imposing a five-year ban on lobbying for outgoing administration officials. Questions have been raised about the legality of the ban, and it remains to be seen how it will be enforced.

Trump’s promise to push for a similar five-year ban on lobbying for members of Congress has yet to materialize. Meanwhile, the traffic has been mostly in the other direction, with more than 100 lobbyists named to positions in his administration, the majority serving at the very agencies they once tried to influence. The January executive order was meant to curb that practice as well, but within months the administration began granting waivers to allow lobbyists to take jobs regulating the industries they previously worked for.

Outside of government, a flood of lobbyists — many linked to the administration, including former Trump campaign manager Cory Lewandowski — have set up shop in Washington with the promise of selling White House influence. Through the first six months of the year, companies and interest groups spent a whopping $1.67 billion on lobbying, according to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics.

“I don’t think that anything’s really changed,” Republican lobbyist Brian Wild told Politico. “If anything, the lobbying business is booming right now.”

Amended staff disclosures

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn departs U.S. District Court in Washington Dec. 1. He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

As a candidate, Trump assured voters he would appoint “only the best and most serious people” to his administration. Accurately filling out financial disclosure forms, however, has proved elusive for many of his appointees.

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, has amended his financial disclosure forms 39 times, according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. In his July revisions, for instance, Kushner revealed that he had “inadvertently omitted” over 70 assets worth $10.6 million, and he added the names of more than 100 foreign contacts not previously disclosed.

Michael Flynn, who Trump says he fired for lying to the FBI and the vice president, amended his disclosure forms in August to include business contacts with an Iranian-American as well as consulting payments for a project to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East. This month, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and longtime Trump business associate Rick Gates have been charged with money laundering, for allegedly moving millions of dollars through foreign shell companies. Three days after Gates surrendered and the terms of his bail agreement were being set, his lawyers admitted that their client had failed to disclose that he was in possession of a second passport.

The Trump Organization

Traffic is seen moving along Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the Trump International Hotel in Washington Nov. 3. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Despite the establishment of a revocable trust meant to insulate the Trump Organization’s business dealings from the presidency, a change to the document added in February allows Trump to tap profits “at his request,” ProPublica reported. Essentially, this means that Trump can still directly benefit from such holdings as his golf courses, his Washington, D.C., hotel, and foreign real estate transactions, despite conflict of interest claims.

“A president is not permitted to receive cash and other benefits from foreign governments,” Norm Eisen, who advised President Obama on ethics and government reform, told NPR’s Terry Gross. “And yet, Donald Trump is getting a steady flow of them around the world and right here in the United States.”

For a president who has spent nearly a third of his time in office at a Trump-owned property, where taxpayers also foot the bill for Secret Service lodging, the advantages of such an arrangement are apparent.

Meanwhile, Trump’s family has worked hard to expand the Trump Organization’s deals around the globe, the profits from which could put the president in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Despite assurances that the president would be kept in the dark about his business empire while in the White House, Eric Trump told Forbes that he briefed his father on a quarterly basis “on the organization’s bottom line, profitability reports and stuff like that.”

Financial opacity

Demonstrators participate in an April 15 march and rally in New York to demand President Trump release his tax returns. (Photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)

While running for president, Trump refused to make his tax returns public — as candidates and presidents have done for the last 40 years — on the grounds that he was under audit by the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, there is no legal prohibition on sharing audited returns, leading to widespread speculation about what Trump didn’t want the public to see.

As the Republican tax plan took shape in Congress, Trump attempted to sell it to the public on the grounds that it would increase taxes for the wealthy, including himself. “I’m doing the right thing,” Trump said, “and it’s not good for me. Believe me.”

There is no way to verify that assertion, but tax experts doubt it.

“Trump will make out like a bandit on all the big items,” Steven M. Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, told the New York Times.

Still, without Trump’s actual tax returns, it’s hard to know exactly how much the bill will personally benefit the president and his family. As White House press secretary Sarah Sanders made clear this month, the chances that Trump will ever release them rates somewhere between slim to none.

“My understanding — and I will double-check — but the president’s taxes, no matter who the president is, actually immediately go under audit after being filed,” Sanders told reporters.

All in the family

White House senior adviser Jared Kushner with his wife, Ivanka Trump, during a welcoming ceremony for her father at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv on May 22. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

There is little denying that the president has stacked his administration with family members and close friends. As Abraham Lincoln recognized in assembling a Cabinet that would function as a “team of rivals,” such an arrangement rewards loyalty above actual government experience, let alone expertise.

While past administrations adhered to a 1967 anti-nepotism law that forbade the appointment of family members, the Trump administration procured a Justice Department ruling that paved the way for unpaid White House roles for first daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner.

“In choosing his personal staff, the President enjoys an unusual degree of freedom, which Congress found suitable to the demands of his office,” Daniel Koffsky, deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a legal opinion.

Almost overnight, Kushner, a real estate developer with no discernable diplomatic experience, was tasked with jump-starting an intractable Middle East peace process.

Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, has attended high-level meetings with foreign leaders and continues to advise her father.

“I have heard the concerns some have with my advising the President in my personal capacity while voluntarily complying with all ethics rules, and I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees,” the president’s daughter said in a statement. “Throughout this process I have been working closely and in good faith with the White House counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role.”

Also unprecedented was the promotion of Ivanka’s clothing brand by counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway.

“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would tell you,” Conway said during a Feb. 9 appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody.”

How Putin’s proxies helped funnel millions into GOP campaigns

The Dallas Morning News – Commentary

How Putin’s proxies helped funnel millions into GOP campaigns

By Ruth May, Contributor      December 15, 2017   

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team probes deeper into potential collusion between Trump officials and representatives of the Russian government, investigators are taking a closer look at political contributions made by U.S. citizens with close ties to Russia.

Buried in the campaign finance reports available to the public are some troubling connections between a group of wealthy donors with ties to Russia and their political contributions to President Donald Trump and a number of top Republican leaders. And thanks to changes in campaign finance laws, the political contributions are legal. We have allowed our campaign finance laws to become a strategic threat to our country.

An example is Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-U.K. citizen and one of the largest donors to GOP political action committees in the 2015-16 election cycle. Blavatnik’s family emigrated to the U.S. in the late ’70s from the U.S.S.R. and he returned to Russia when the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late ’80s.

Data from the Federal Election Commission show that Blavatnik’s campaign contributions dating back to 2009-10 were fairly balanced across party lines and relatively modest for a billionaire. During that season he contributed $53,400. His contributions increased to $135,552 in 2011-12 and to $273,600 in 2013-14, still bipartisan.

In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik’s political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.

In 2017, donations continued, with $41,000 going to both Republican and Democrat candidates, along with $1 million to McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund.

Touch chart to see info:

So is this legal?

 

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking Democratic leader on the House Intelligence Committee, told ABC News in September: “Unless the contributions were directed by a foreigner, they would be legal, but could still be of interest to investigators examining allegations of Russian influence on the 2016 campaign. Obviously, if there were those that had associations with the Kremlin that were contributing, that would be of keen concern.”

Under federal law, foreigner nationals are barred from contributing directly or indirectly to political campaigns in local, state and federal elections.

Should Blavatnik’s contributions concern Mueller’s team of investigators? Take a look at his long-time business associates in Russia.

The Oligarchs

Oleg Deripaska is said to be one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s favorite oligarchs, and he is founder and majority shareholder of Russia’s Rusal, the second-largest aluminum company in the world. Blavatnik holds a stake in Rusal with a business partner.

Further, nearly 4 percent of Deripaska’s stake in Rusal is owned by Putin’s state-controlled bank, VTB, which is currently under U.S. sanctions. VTB was exposed in the Panama Papers in 2016 for facilitating the flow of billions of dollars to offshore companies linked to Putin.

Earlier this year, The Associated Press reported that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, began collecting $10 million a year in 2006 from Deripaska to advance Putin’s interests with Western governments. Deripaska’s name turned up again in an email handed over to Mueller’s team by Manafort’s attorneys. According to The Washington Post, in the email dated July 7, 2016, just two weeks before Trump accepted the Republican nomination for president, Manafort asked an overseas intermediary to pass a message on to Deripaska: “If he [Deripaska] needs private briefings, tell him we can accommodate.”

Viktor Vekselberg is one of the 10 richest men in Russia. He and long-time business partner Blavatnik hold a 20.5 percent stake in Rusal. (They met while attending university in Russia.)

In 1990, Blavatnik and Vekselberg co-founded the Renova Group for large-scale investments in energy, infrastructure, aluminum and other metals. One of their earliest investments was in Tyumen Oil Co. (TNK), founded in 1995. TNK is best known for its contentious partnership with British Petroleum after the two entities formed a joint venture in 2003. That rocky relationship ended 10 years later when they sold out to the state-controlled energy giant, Rosneft, under pressure from the Russian government.

As for BP, that pressure took the form of growing harassment and intimidation from Russian authorities who at one point, according to Forbes, refused to renew visas for BP employees, forcing BP’s joint venture chief Robert Dudley (who is now chief executive of BP) to flee Russia and manage TNK-BP from a foreign outpost in a secret location.

Vekselberg has connections to at least two Americans who made significant GOP campaign contributions during the last cycle. They are among several Americans who also merit Mueller’s scrutiny.

Touch chart to see info:

The Americans

Andrew Intrateraccording to Mother Jones, is Vekselberg’s cousin. He is also chief executive of Columbus Nova, Renova’s U.S. investment arm located in New York. (FEC records list his employer as Renova US Management LLC.)

Intrater had no significant history of political contributions prior to the 2016 elections. But in January 2017 he contributed $250,000 to Trump’s Inaugural Committee. His six-figure gift bought him special access to a dinner billed as “an intimate policy discussion with select cabinet appointees,” according to a brochure obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

Alexander Shustorovich, chief executive of IMG Artists, attempted to give the Republican Party $250,000 in 2000 to support the George W. Bush presidential campaign, but his money was rejected because of his ties to the Russian government, according to Quartz. So why didn’t the Trump team reject Shustorovich’s $1 million check to Trump’s Inaugural Committee?

Simon Kukes is an oil magnate who has something in common with Intrater. From 1998 to 2003, he worked for Vekselberg and Blavatnik as chief executive of TNK. Redacted CIA documents released in 2003 under the Freedom of Information Act said “TNK president Kukes said that he bribed local officials.” The CIA confirmed the authenticity of the reports to The Guardian newspaper but would not comment further. In 2016, Kukes contributed a total of $283,000, much of it to the Trump Victory Fund. He had no significant donor history before last year’s election.

Touch chart to see info:

There is no doubt that Kukes has close ties to the Putin government. When he left his job as CEO of TNK in June 2003, he joined the board of Yukos Oil, which at the time was the largest oil company in Russia owned by the richest man in Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Four months after Kukes joined the board, authorities arrested Khodorkovsky at gunpoint on his private plane in Siberia on trumped up charges of tax evasion and tapped Kukes to be CEO. This decision could only have been made at the highest levels in the Kremlin. The arrest of Khodorkovsky rattled the nerves of international investors and was the first tangible sign that Putin was not going to be the kind of leader that global executives and Western governments had expected him to be when he first took office in 2000.

Khodorkovksy was given a 13-year sentence in a Siberian prison and served 10 years before being released by Putin in December 2013, a month before the start of the 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi, as a sign of goodwill. As for the fate of Khodorkovksy’s company, its largest oil subsidiary was sold in a sealed bid auction to Baikal Financial Group, a shell company with an unpublished list of officers. Baikal was registered at an address that turned out to be a mobile phone store in Tver, Russia. Three days after the auction, all of Baikal’s assets were acquired for an undisclosed sum by Rosneft, the Russian oil giant that went on to buy TNK-BP in 2013.

In total, Blavatnik, Intrater, Shustorovich and Kukes made $10.4 million in political contributions from the start of the 2015-16 election cycle through September 2017, and 99 percent of their contributions went to Republicans. With the exception of Shustorovich, the common denominator that connects the men is their association with Vekselberg. Experts who follow the activities of Russian oligarchs told ABC News that they believe the contributions from Blavatnik, Intrater and Kukes warrant intense scrutiny because they have worked closely with Vekselberg.

Even if the donations by the four men associated with Russia ultimately pass muster with Mueller, one still has to wonder: Why did GOP PACs and other Trump-controlled funds take their money? Why didn’t the PACs say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” like the Republicans said to Shustorovich in 2000? Yes, it was legal to accept their donations, but it was incredibly poor judgment.

McConnell surely knew as a participant in high level intelligence briefings in 2016 that our electoral process was under attack by the Russians. Two weeks after the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement in October 2016 that the Russian government had directed the effort to interfere in our electoral process, McConnell’s PAC accepted a $1 million donation from Blavatnik’s AI-Altep Holdings. The PAC took another $1 million from Blavatnik’s AI-Altep Holdings on March 30, 2017, just 10 days after former FBI Director James Comey publicly testified before the House Intelligence Committee about Russia’s interference in the election.

And consider Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s campaign finance chairman. Could he have known that the Trump Victory Fund, jointly managed by the Republican National Committe and Trump’s campaign, took contributions from Intrater and Kukes? Mnuchin owned Hollywood financing company RatPac-Dune with Blavatnik until he sold his stake to accept Trump’s appointment as the Treasury secretary.

Which PAC officials are making the decisions to accept these donations?

The Supreme Court

The contributions are legal because the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling, Citizens United, and several subsequent decisions, allowed American corporations and citizens to give unlimited amounts of money to PACs and non-profit 501c4 organizations, regardless of how they make their money, where they make their money, or with whom they make their money. The only caveat is that PACs and non-profits cannot coordinate their activities with the political candidates they support.

The man who led the winning fight for Citizens United was David Bossie, president of the conservative non-profit since 2001. In 1996, Bossie was hired by Republican Rep. Dan Burton to lead an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s campaign fundraising. Burton fired him 18 months later for manipulating recordings of conversations among law officials and Webb Hubbell, a Clinton confidant who resigned as associate attorney general and pleaded guilty to tax fraud during the Whitewater investigation. CNN reported at the time that Newt Gingrich, who was speaker of the House, called Bossie’s tampering with the Hubbell recordings an embarrassment to the Republicans.

Bossie served as Trump’s deputy campaign chairman.

The Super PAC, Make America Number 1, is primarily funded by Trump’s largest donor, Robert Mercer. His Renaissance Technologies hedge fund donated $15.5 million to the PAC.

Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, assumed control of Make America Number 1 in September 2016 and is now tainted by her role in the communications between Wikileaks and Cambridge Analytica, the firm that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hired for $5.9 million to handle the digital portion of the Trump campaign.

Robert and Rebekah Mercer are major investors in Cambridge Analytica. According to The Wall Street Journal, Rebekah Mercer asked Cambridge chief executive Alexander Nix if the firm could compile stolen emails related to Hillary Clinton so that they could be more easily searched. (This suggestion came from someone she met at an event supporting Sen. Ted Cruz, according to The Hill. Cambridge Analytica had worked on digital marketing for Cruz before he dropped out of the Republican primary.)

Nix confirmed that he had asked Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to forward the Clinton-related emails. Assange said he declined the request.

Rebekah Mercer also heads the non-profit Making America Great, formed in March 2017. The non-profit ran a seven-figure ad campaign highlighting Trump’s achievements. Bossie is the group’s chief strategist.

Erik Prince, brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, contributed $150,000 to Mercer’s Make America Number 1 PAC and another $100,000 to the Trump Victory Fund. Prince has recently testified to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about his trip to the remote Seychelles for a secret meeting in December 2016 with a close ally of Putin, Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The purpose of the meeting was allegedly to setup a back channel of communication between then president-elect Donald Trump and the Russians, though Prince has denied this allegation. Before the 2015-16 elections, Prince’s political contributions totaled a mere $31,800 as far back as 2007, according to FEC records.

The hybrid super-PAC, The Committee to Defend the President, was formed in 2013 under the name Stop Hillary PAC. It is managed by Dan Backer, the lead attorney who won the McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission case in 2014. The Supreme Court decision eliminated the cap on how much wealthy individuals can donate to federal candidates, parties and PACs in a single, two-year election cycle.

Like Bossie, Dan Backer helped to open the floodgates to millions of dollars of influence brought to bear on incumbents and their political challengers who are now pressured to kowtow to their donors with the biggest bank accounts, even if their billions are earned in Russian rubles.

Backer was born in Russia and emigrated with his family to the U.S. in 1978.

The changes to our campaign finance laws created an avenue for Russia to try to influence our elections. There are holes in our firewall and they aren’t on the internet.

Touch chart to see info:

Ruth May is a business professor at the University of Dallas and an expert on the economies of Russia and Ukraine. She wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News. Email: rmay@udallas.edu.

Graphics by Michael Hogue/Staff Artist

What’s your view?   Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor, and you just might get published.

Trump announced a new national security strategy, removing climate change from the list of global threats. Maybe he should have consulted with the U.S. Military first?

President Donald J. Trump has announced a new national security strategy, removing climate change from the list of global threats. Maybe he should have consulted with the U.S. Military first?

Read more: ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-national-security

via Years of Living Dangerously #WarOnOurKidsFuture #YEARSproject

President Donald J. Trump has announced a new national security strategy, removing climate change from the list of global threats. Maybe he should have consulted with the U.S. Military first? Read more: ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-national-securityvia Years of Living Dangerously #WarOnOurKidsFuture #YEARSproject

Posted by EcoWatch on Friday, December 22, 2017

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.

Read more: http://bit.ly/2BMB7Ae

via Years of Living Dangerously #ClimateFacts #YEARSproject

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Read more: http://bit.ly/2BMB7Aevia Years of Living Dangerously #ClimateFacts #YEARSproject

Posted by EcoWatch on Thursday, December 21, 2017