Watchdog of Far-Right GOP Issues ‘The Definitive Guide to Project 2025’

Spread the love

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts speaks at the National Conservative Conference in Washington D.C. on July 8, 2024. (Photo: Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images via AFP)

“It’s a clear threat to our democracy, as our government could be weaponized against us as part of a concerted effort to control how we live our live,” said the vice president of Media Matters for America.

A watchdog organization that monitors the Republican Party and the far-right movement at its core released a document Thursday characterized as “the definitive guide to Project 2025,” a sweeping policy agenda crafted by more than 100 conservative groups and alumni of former President Donald Trump’s administration.

The 67-page report published by Media Matters for America lays out in detail Trump’s close ties to Project 2025 and examines specific policy proposals included in the agenda, which—if implemented—would affect every area of American life, from the workplace to the environment to reproductive rights and other fundamental freedoms.

“Project 2025 lays out an extreme far-right agenda that would impose draconian restrictions to the lives of everyday Americans,” Media Matters vice president Julie Millican said in a statement. “If enacted, not only would it gut the checks and balances that our country relies on, but it’s a clear threat to our democracy, as our government could be weaponized against us as part of a concerted effort to control how we live our lives.”

“Project 2025’s extremist goals make clear what’s truly at stake,” Millican added.

“Project 2025 looks like an albatross that Trump will find hard to get rid of.”

Contrary to the Republican presidential nominee’s claim that he “knows nothing about” Project 2025 or who’s behind it, Media Matters noted that “Trump and his allies are deeply connected” to the initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation.

The new report points to Trump’s remarks at a 2022 Heritage event, where the former president declared that the group would “lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.” The Washington Post revealed Wednesday that Trump traveled to the event via private jet with Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation.

CNN reported that there are ‘nearly 240 people with ties to both Project 2025 and to Trump,'” Media Matters observed in its new analysis. “The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee nominated Project 2025 author Russ Vought as the policy director of the RNC’s 2024 Committee on the Platform… John McEntee, a Project 2025 senior adviser, said in April he would ‘integrate a lot of our work’ with the Trump campaign later this year.”

The report spotlights plans outlined by Project 2025 and the Trump campaign to purge the federal workforce and replace career civil servants with Trump loyalists dedicated to implementing the far-right movement’s assault on abortion rights, climate regulations, labor protections, and more. Trump allies have already begun screening “thousands of potential foot soldiers” to replace federal employees across the U.S. government.

“This posture toward witch hunts against federal bureaucrats recalls the days of disgraced Sen. Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade, which resulted in massive purges of left-wing federal employees as well as those perceived to be gay or gender-nonconforming,” Media Matters noted, adding that “MAGA media, including Project 2025 allies, have openly celebrated McCarthy’s destructive legacy.”

The report also points with alarm to “a blog published to The American Conservative, a Project 2025 partner, [that] advocated for repealing the 22nd Amendment to allow Trump to serve a third term.”

The Media Matters report came as the University of Massachusetts Amherst released new national survey data showing that Project 2025’s policy proposals are “deeply unpopular” with U.S. voters.

Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll, said Thursday that “Project 2025 looks like an electoral liability” for Trump and the GOP, which has been accused of injecting Project 2025 policies into government funding proposals currently before Congress.

Nteta said that given the results of the new survey—conducted between July 29 and August 1—”it is no surprise that the Democratic Party has sought to link” Project 2025 with Trump or that the GOP nominee has attempted to “move away from any and all association with the unpopular 900-page playbook.”

“Large majorities of Americans oppose the key pillars of Project 2025, such as the replacement of career government officials with political appointees (68% opposed), restricting a woman’s right to contraception (72% opposed), and eliminating the Department of Education (64% opposed),” said Nteta. “While our politics are usually divided by class, generational, racial, gender, and partisan identities, among these groups we find strong opposition to many of the policies associated with Project 2025.”

“Even former Trump voters exhibit opposition to many of these policies,” Nteta added, “a bad omen for the Republican Party and Trump campaign.”

Just 8% of Trump 2020 voters support Project 2025’s proposal to strip emergency contraception access from tens of millions of women across the U.S., according to the new poll. Only 18% of Trump voters said they support “firing federal employees and replacing them with political appointees loyal to the president.”

More than half of Americans say they have heard about Project 2025, the new survey shows—a finding that UMass Amherst professor Jesse Rhodes described as remarkable given that Heritage Foundation reports are “usually incredibly obscure.”

“For the most part, Americans don’t like what they are hearing,” said Rhodes, a co-director of the new poll. “It’s no wonder Trump is trying to distance himself from Project 2025, but unfortunately for him, because dozens of his former administration officials worked on the report, this is going to be hard to do. Project 2025 looks like an albatross that Trump will find hard to get rid of.”

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingWatchdog of Far-Right GOP Issues ‘The Definitive Guide to Project 2025’

Billionaires Buy Governments to Avoid Paying Their Fair Share in Taxes

Spread the love

Original article by BOB LORD of Inequality.Org republished from Common Dreams under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

U.S. President Donald Trump smiles at House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) after speaking about the passage of tax cut legislation at the White House in Washington, D.C. on December 20, 2017. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

In legislatures, the courts, and our executive offices, we have a system rigged in favor of the ultra-rich, rigged by everything from acts of Congress and judicial rulings to IRS budgets and audit policies.

By all appearances, former U.S. President Donald Trump has cut a sweet deal with a dozen or two of America’s richest billionaires: Finance his campaign and he’ll keep their federal taxes super low—or even lower them—once he’s sitting back in the White House.

How much do billionaires like this deal? This much: In April, hedge fund billionaire John Paulsen held a Palm Beach fundraiser for Trump that brought in $50.5 million. Immediately after Trump’s late May conviction on 34 felony counts in Manhattan, Timothy Mellon, the grandson of the classic plutocrat Andrew Mellon, ponied up $50 million. Miriam Adelson, the billionaire widow of Las Vegas kingpin Sheldon Adelson, appears eager to kick in as much as $100 million.

This past spring, meanwhile, billionaires Elon Musk and David Sacks reportedly held a secret dinner party for Trump, with attendees including the illustrious deep pockets Peter Thiel, Rupert Murdoch, and Michael Milken.

The rich themselves have actually become more brazen about avoiding taxes. Just try to stop us, they seem to be saying.

America’s billionaires clearly see politics as one route to ensuring they pay as little as possible at tax time. But they don’t just make their presence felt at election time. America’s rich have their thumbs firmly on the scale of all three branches of government. In legislatures, the courts, and our executive offices, we have a system rigged in favor of the ultra-rich, rigged by everything from acts of Congress and judicial rulings to IRS budgets and audit policies.

Some of this rigging we can all easily see. The dividends and long-term capital gains of the ultra-rich have for decades faced a maximum tax rate barely half the maximum rate applicable to other forms of income. And the investment income of the rich, unlike the paychecks of working people, faces no Social Security tax.

In 2017, the first year of the Trump presidency, intense lobbying efforts helped rich business owners to a special tax rate for their business income. In 2018 alone, according to ProPublica, that special rate translated into a $67 million gift to Mike Bloomberg, whose personal wealth now reportedly exceeds $100 billion.

But these glaring privileges the rich enjoy at tax time only tell part of the billionaire tax story. Other parts get precious little attention. In 2004, for instance, lawmakers in Congress enacted a penalty for the failure to disclose potentially abusive tax avoidance transactions on tax returns. The penalty on the surface looked substantial: 75% of the tax sought to be avoided. But Congress capped the penalty at $100,000, a move that turned the penalty into a minor nuisance for billionaires seeking to avoid millions of dollars in taxes.

In our current rich people-friendly tax climate, IRS staff who want to do the right thing face tough going. Recently, for example, one former IRS staffer, Michael Welu, went public with his concerns that the IRS itself has both official and unofficial policies that end up treating audited rich taxpayers much more gently than small business owners.

“I was putting butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers in jail,” Welu told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, “but the big stuff we really wanted to go after was being ignored.”

Welu found the upper management of the IRS division tasked with auditing the super rich—and the corporations they run—distinctly uninterested in investigating America’s richest and their “most egregious, ridiculous schemes” for avoiding taxes.

IRS officials like Michael Welu do occasionally speak out. But only tax wonks truly have any real sense of how much obscure tax code penalties and IRS audit policies favor the rich. And most of those tax wonks work for the rich.

The rich themselves have actually become more brazen about avoiding taxes. Just try to stop us, they seem to be saying.

Take the recently decided Supreme Court case, Moore v. United States. Working through an array of right-wing organizations, the conservative mover-and-shaker Leonard Leo attempted to use a challenge to an obscure one-time tax as a vehicle to preempt Congress from ever taxing the wealth or unrealized gains of the ultra-rich. Ultimately, the court decided the case without ruling on whether the rich can be taxed on their wealth or unrealized gains. But the opinions that four of the nine justices handed down made it clear that they stand prepared to do the billionaire bidding should a direct challenge to a tax on the wealth or unrealized gains of billionaires come before them.

Billionaires now have at least three Supreme Court justices firmly in their pockets. Reporting by ProPublica has revealed the massive gifts that have been flowing from Harlan Crow and other billionaires to Justice Clarence Thomas as well as the generous gifts that billionaire Paul Singer has been sending Justice Samuel Alito’s way. Justice Neil Gorsuch has had his entire career, including his appointment to the court, funded by the billionaire Philip Anschutz.

Those three justices, along with Justice Amy Coney-Barret, have now made it patently obvious they will not allow billionaires to be taxed on their unrealized gains or their wealth. Does anyone really think the billionaires won’t have the crucial, majority-making fifth vote from Justice Brett Kavanaugh when they need it?

Republican members of Congress are showing even less shame than our Supreme Court justices. Last year, these GOP lawmakers held the country hostage in negotiations to increase the country’s debt limit. Their price for agreeing to raise the debt limit, thereby avoiding a default on the country’s debt? They demanded—and won—a reduction in a scheduled IRS budget increase that would been used to increase enforcement moves against rich taxpayers.

The purported motive for this legislative hostage taking—“concern” over the federal deficit—made for an absurd justification. The proposed increase in the IRS budget would have been recovered, several times over, through increased tax collections. The IRS budget reductions the Republican lawmakers extracted will, in fact, only increase the federal deficit. But those reductions will serve a political purpose. They’ll protect the GOP’s richest patrons from tax enforcement.

The mainstream media, to no one’s surprise, did a miserable job of exposing this Republican dishonesty in the debt limit negotiations. But at one point in our recent past a courageous soul did emerge to expose the rot in our tax system. What happened? The ultra-rich and their henchmen in Congress make sure that this soul faced a punishment far more severe than any punishment ever meted out to those few rich Americans who actually get caught evading their taxes due.

That courageous soul, Charles Littlejohn, worked as an IRS contractor. He leaked tax return information related to Trump and America’s billionaires to TheNew York Times and ProPublicaProPublica used that leaked information to write over 50 stories about billionaire tax avoidance, embarrassing and angering many of our richest in the process. Two of them even brought lawsuits, one against the IRS and the other against Littlejohn’s employer.

Ultimately, Littlejohn pled guilty to one count of unauthorized tax return information disclosure, a crime that carries a recommended sentence of four to 10 months. But 25 Republican members of Congress, undoubtedly at the behest of their billionaire patrons, wrote the judge in the case and urged the harshest possible sentence of five years. The judge obliged, stating in her sentencing remarks that Littlejohn posed a graver threat to democracy than the January 6 rioters. As tax law professor Reuven Avi-Yonah has noted, Littlejohn is now serving a sentence far harsher than any imposed on rich Americans convicted of tax evasion.

Littlejohn’s extreme sentence did not reflect the one single count of unauthorized tax return information disclosure he pled guilty to. That sentence reflects his “crime” of exposing the tax avoidance of the billionaire class.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine if Littlejohn had released the return information of 1,000 or so taxpayers with modest incomes to ProPublica. Imagine that ProPublica had then publicly detailed all the tip income that servers and bartenders among these taxpayers had failed to report and all the social meals that small business owners in the sample had claimed as business expenses. If Littlejohn had then pled to one count of unauthorized disclosure, would 25 members of Congress have intervened? Would the judge have imposed a sentence over six times the maximum recommended in federal sentencing guidelines?

Doesn’t it become dangerous to society when the punishment for a crime depends on who the victim happens to be?

We are now living that danger. Our billionaires sit firmly in control. And they will do whatever it takes to make sure they never pay tax at an appropriate level—even if that means locking a human being up for a preposterously long time just to send a message.

Original article by BOB LORD of Inequality.Org republished from Common Dreams under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Continue ReadingBillionaires Buy Governments to Avoid Paying Their Fair Share in Taxes

Trump vs. Harris: what each presidency would mean for the green transition

Spread the love

https://www.energymonitor.ai/features/trump-vs-harris-what-each-presidency-would-mean-for-the-green-transition/

Trump and Harris’s environmental policies chart starkly different climate futures for the US and the world. Credit (from left): Stephen Maturen/Getty Images and Allison Joyce/AFP via Getty Images

The presidential candidates for the world’s largest fossil fuel producer have starkly different climate policies.

All eyes are on the US elections in November this year, with the decision of the 160+ million voters in the country to play a major role in determining the world’s trajectory towards a net-zero future.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), even with current pledges for emissions reduction, the planet is hurtling towards a rise of up to 2.9°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. This would be catastrophic, and, one report indicates that the crisis could cost $178trn in global economic loss by 2070.

Projected 2030 emissions must fall by an additional 28-42% to limit warming to 2°C, per UNEP estimates. This means that global decisions on decarbonisation in this decade will have ramifications for this century of humanity.

Trump dismisses ‘green new scam’

Under a Trump administration, net-zero goals are expected to be in severe jeopardy.

During his former presidency, Trump not only reversed more than 100 Obama-era environmental protections but also pulled the US out of the landmark 2016 Paris Agreement, through which countries are working together to keep global emissions below the threshold of a 2°C rise.

During his campaign for re-election, Trump has dismissed rising environmental regulations as a “green new scam” and made no secret of his intentions to support the fossil fuel industry yet again.

Speaking to a Fox News journalist at a town hall event in Iowa, he shared plans to expand oil drilling on “day one” and also promised to “drill, baby, drill” in his presidential nomination speech on 18 July.

Moreover, at an April dinner at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, he was reported to have asked oil industry executives to donate $1bn to aid his presidential campaign, citing benefits for them on avoided taxation and regulation as he plans to reverse environmental rules.

The projections are dire. According to analysis by Carbon Brief, a climate policy and science website, Trump’s likely policies would add four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, which would cause global climate damages worth more than $900bn, as per the latest US government evaluations.

Harris hailed a ‘climate champion’

Harris, on the other hand, has a long history of enforcing climate action and is widely expected to carry on the legacy of the IRA.  

She was an early co-sponsor for the Green New Deal, a comprehensive proposal for systemic decarbonisation in the US, including creating a 100% renewable energy grid and millions of green jobs.

Most notably, ahead of her brief presidential election campaign back in 2019, Harris unveiled a $10trn plan to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2045, including policies such as working to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

She also pledged to tax polluting industries and said she would establish an independent Office of Climate and Environmental Justice Accountability that would represent and support frontline communities, and monitor government compliance.

“Success in the presidential election in November would likely lead to Harris continuing to build on this existing climate legislation and defend against Republican criticism,” says Gregory.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/features/trump-vs-harris-what-each-presidency-would-mean-for-the-green-transition/

Continue ReadingTrump vs. Harris: what each presidency would mean for the green transition

Racist Donald Trump Says Kamala Harris ‘Happened to Turn Black’

Spread the love

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Former U.S. President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, answers questions from moderator and journalist Rachel Scott during the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago, Illinois, on July 31, 2024. (Photo: Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images)

“This unhinged and shameful person should never be near the presidency again,” said Congressman Robert Garcia. “He’s a disgrace.”

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s long and well-documented history of racism garnered fresh attention on Wednesday after the Republican nominee’s comments about Vice President Kamala Harris, his presumptive Democratic opponent, at a convention for Black reporters.

During Trump’s appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) event in Chicago, he was asked about racist claims from some Republicans that Harris is a “DEI hire,” a reference to the diversity, equity, and inclusion policies targeted by the GOP.

“She was always of Indian heritage and she was only promoting Indian heritage,” Trump said. “I didn’t know she was Black, until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”

Harris, whose nomination process is set to begin Thursday, was born to an Indian mother and Jamaican father. As she recalled in a 2019 debate, she was “a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day.” She went on to graduate from the historically Black Howard University.

Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah, who announced on social media Tuesday that she “decided to step down as co-chair from this year’s #NABJ24 convention,” reported Wednesday that “the crowd has actually been gasping and upset at Trump’s attacks on NABJ, Kamala Harris’ racial identity, etc.”

While some right-wing figures celebrated Trump’s comments about Harris’ identity, there was also significant backlash beyond the convention.

Sharing a video on social media, Nebraska state Sen. Megan Hunt (D-8) said: “Unreal, racist, worth watching, and I have to say it’s a good thing that he’s out on the record in serious spaces talking about how he really feels. Keep it up, here’s your guy, conservatives.”

Congressman Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) declared: “This unhinged and shameful person should never be near the presidency again. He’s a disgrace.”

Harris campaign communications director Michael Tyler said in a statement that “the hostility Donald Trump showed on stage today is the same hostility he has shown throughout his life, throughout his term in office, and throughout his campaign for president as he seeks to regain power and inflict his harmful Project 2025 agenda on the American people.”

“Trump lobbed personal attacks and insults at Black journalists the same way he did throughout his presidency—while he failed Black families and left the entire country digging out of the ditch he left us in,” Tyler continued, echoing the campaign’s comments ahead of the Wednesday event. “Donald Trump has already proven he cannot unite America, so he attempts to divide us.”

“Today’s tirade is simply a taste of the chaos and division that has been a hallmark of Trump’s MAGA rallies this entire campaign. It’s also exactly what the American people will see from across the debate stage as Vice President Harris offers a vision of opportunity and freedom for all Americans,” he added. “All Donald Trump needs to do is stop playing games and actually show up to the debate on September 10.”

Harris supporters and anti-racism advocates have anticipated such comments from Trump and his allies and expect them to continue. Sung Yeon Choimorrow, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, wrote Monday in a Common Dreams opinion piece, “As a society, we cannot simply brush off verbal attacks and racist misogyny as acceptable speech.”

“Working towards real systemic change in a world that recognizes and addresses the real harm caused by anti-Asian and racialized misogyny,” she argued, “will take all of us speaking up against these kinds of attacks that have been allowed to go on for far too long.”

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue ReadingRacist Donald Trump Says Kamala Harris ‘Happened to Turn Black’

7 Green Groups That Didn’t Back Biden Just Endorsed Harris as ‘Our Only Choice’

Spread the love

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the American Federation of Teachers’ 88th National Convention on July 25, 2024 in Houston, Texas. (Photo: Montinique Monroe/Getty Images)

“With a President Harris, we will have a chance to build the political power to move the bold climate initiatives we need.”

Progressive climate and environmental advocacy groups on Wednesday stressed the threat posed by the Republican presidential ticket and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the November election.

One coalition of six groups—350 Action, Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, Food and Water Action, and 350 Action, Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, Food and Water Action,350 Action, Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, Food and Water Action, and Friends of the Earth Action—cited Harris’ record as vice president and a U.S. senator from California.

Despite his months as the presumptive Democratic nominee, none of the organizations had endorsed President Joe Biden before he dropped out of the race and backed Harris earlier this month.

“Vice President Harris is a visible leader in the Biden-Harris administration’s successful work to address environmental injustice, tackle the climate crisis, hold polluters accountable, reduce water pollution, and ensure clean drinking water for all,” said Clean Water Action president and CEO Jeff Carter, emphasizing that her actions “have made a real difference in people’s lives.”

Jeff Ordower of 350 Action highlighted that in addition to being “part of the administration that invested in renewable energy through the historic Inflation Reduction Act,” Harris “has a history of taking on Big Oil and advocating for environmental justice.”

“As a global climate movement, we know Harris represents not just the ability to make progress in the U.S., but globally as well,” he added. “For those… who care about democracy, climate, and decreased corporate capture of our government, Kamala Harris is our only choice.”

“For those… who care about democracy, climate, and decreased corporate capture of our government, Kamala Harris is our only choice.”

Kierán Suckling, president of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, similarly urged “everyone who cares about our planet, environmental justice, women’s rights, civil rights, and our democracy to get out and vote for Kamala Harris to be our next president.”

Suckling also took aim at former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, declaring that “Harris will lead us toward a brighter future for our children and grandchildren, and put the nightmare of Trump behind us.”

Trump—who earlier this month announced Big Oil-backed Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate—has vowed to “drill, baby, drill” and roll back the Biden-Harris administration climate policies if fossil fuel executives pour money into his campaign.

Although the U.S. is among five wealthy countries that have led a global surge in oil and gas development this year, Harris’ campaign has warned that “oil barons are salivating” over Trump’s potential return to the White House.

A March study found that Trump’s plans for a second term would lead to 4 billion more tons of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by 2030 when compared with the policies of Biden—who has passed the torch to Harris, whose online nomination process is set to start on Thursday.

“Kamala Harris’ record provides a stark contrast with Donald Trump and the far-right, pro-polluter Project 2025,” said Wenonah Hauter, founder and executive director of Food and Water Action. “Of course, much more needs to be done, and Harris’ positions do not yet go far enough to tackle the existential threats to our food, water, and climate.”

“But with a President Harris, we will have a chance to build the political power to move the bold climate initiatives we need,” Hauter emphasized. “Four more years of Trump and Project 2025 will further accelerate an already escalating climate crisis and eviscerate important protections for our food and water.”

The six groups that backed Harris but not Biden were among the campaigners and scientists angered by the president supporting the Willow project and Mountain Valley Pipeline, continuing fossil fuel lease sales, skipping last year’s United Nations summit, and declining to declare a national climate emergency.

As HEATED, which scooped the endorsement news, reported late Tuesday:

Harris has already received endorsements from the so-called “Big Green” groups—the political arms of the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Clean Energy for America. But those weren’t much of a surprise, as each group had already backed Biden’s reelection bid, and are traditionally loyal to Democratic Party politicians.

The groups endorsing Harris on Wednesday, however, had so far held off on throwing their support behind Biden while he was running for reelection—in part because of the sitting president’s mixed record on climate policy.

“It was very much a debate” on whether to endorse Biden, said one of the group’s staffers, who spoke on background because the Harris announcement is not yet public. But with Harris, the calculus has changed.

“Because of her work in California and when she was a senator—a lot of us worked with her on creating the Environmental Justice for All Act—it gives us hope,” the staffer said. “She’s just a different person [than Biden], and has a stronger track record.”

“Friends of the Earth Action is excited to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States,” the group’s president, Erich Pica said Wednesday. “We are not going back to an era dominated by fossil fuel interests, corporate greed, and disenfranchisement. Instead, we’re looking forward to building a healthy and just future with Vice President Harris.”

For Climate Hawks Vote, this is the organization’s first presidential endorsement since its founding over a decade ago.

“We’re breaking our usual rule of not endorsing in presidential elections, given our strong history with Kamala Harris (we endorsed her in her 2016 Senate race), her track record in taking on Big Oil and holding polluters accountable, and the extraordinary moment of this election,” explained RL Miller, the group’s president. “We are climate hawks who vote, and we’ll be flocking together for Kamala Harris.”

The Green New Deal Network—which also never endorsed Biden—separately threw its support behind Harris on Wednesday.

“What the Green New Deal really is, is understanding that everything’s connected,” the network’s national director, Kaniela Ing, toldInside Climate News. “Making sure our tax dollars aren’t just going to kill children abroad, but to build schools and hospitals here at home… Local control of resources, self-determination of our communities. That’s the vision Kamala Harris, given her background—being bused to schools, really being a product of a lot of our social programs—really understands.”

One group that has not yet endorsed Harris but has certainly been attentive to both major party tickets is the youth-led Sunrise Movement. The organization warned earlier this month that the Republicans would cause “catastrophic and irreversible damage” to the climate if elected, and some members were arrested for a Monday protest Vance’s Senate office on Capitol Hill.

That same day, Sunrise rallied outside of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. to urge Harris “to put forward a comprehensive plan on the economy and climate.”

Sunrise is also part of a youth-led coalition—which includes Gen-Z for Change, March for Our Lives, and United We Dream Action—that wrote to Harris last week, “This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance.”

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue Reading7 Green Groups That Didn’t Back Biden Just Endorsed Harris as ‘Our Only Choice’