SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
catherine cortez masto
'New Name, Still Cuts Medicaid': GOP Attempts Rebrand of Healthcare-Slashing Budget Bill Amid Dismal Polls
"Hey, so changing what you call this bill actually doesn’t change the harm that’s in it," said one Democratic senator. "Hope this helps!"
Sep 03, 2025
The Republican Party's massive budget law has shown itself to be decidedly unpopular with voters, as polls consistently show Americans opposed to its $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid.
Because of this, reported Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman, US President Donald Trump met with GOP members of Congress on Wednesday morning to discuss how to boost the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act's popularity.
According to Sherman, Trump's message to the GOP is that the bill will become popular if "they completely rebrand it and talk about it differently."
Politico similarly reported that Republicans in Congress have been eager to rebrand the bill after enduring "a spate of angry crowds at... town halls and alarming polling that shows dismal views of the bill's safety-net cuts and deficit impact."
As Common Dreams reported last month, Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) faced angry constituents who yelled, "You cut our healthcare!" and called him a liar when he claimed the Medicaid cuts would improve healthcare services. Other Republicans have been confronted with similar outrage at town halls.
Republican pollsters are reportedly recommending that GOP lawmakers tout provisions in the bill such as eliminating taxes on some tips, although worker advocacy organization One Fair Wage has found that this provision won't benefit most tipped workers since two-thirds of them don't earn enough money to file federal income taxes.
In fact, New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni noted that Republicans started referring to the package as the "working families tax plan" after getting out of their Tuesday morning meeting.
But critics in the Democratic Party argued that a simple rebrand of the legislation is unlikely to be enough to rescue it in the court of public opinion, with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) emphasizing that the problems with the law stem not from marketing, but from its substance.
"The poorest 25% of workers lose money under this bill while the richest Americans get a $270,000 tax cut," he wrote while sharing a chart of Congressional Budget Office estimates of the impact the law will have on different income groups. "They can rebrand all they want. The facts are the facts. They screwed working people to help their billionaire and corporate donors."
Several other Democratic lawmakers similarly pounced to mock the GOP's attempted rebrand.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) sardonically offered advice to her Republican colleagues, writing: "Hey, so changing what you call this bill actually doesn’t change the harm that’s in it. Hope this helps!"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) suggested a more accurate renaming of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would be the “Tax on Working Families” plan.
"Under the GOP tax law, billionaires got the big tax cuts. In fact, thanks to Republicans, many working families will actually see their taxes go up," said Beyer. "And Trump's tariffs are a huge tax hike on working Americans."
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Penn.) ridiculed the White House for "desperately" trying to rebrand the package because "working families think the GOP's plan to sacrifice their healthcare and SNAP benefits to give billionaires a tax cut is a bad idea."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Rip GOP's Sneaky 'Multibillion-Dollar Bailout' for Big Pharma
"Because of you and congressional Republicans, seniors will continue to face astronomical, unaffordable costs for lifesaving cancer treatments," said Sens. Ron Wyden and Catherine Cortez Masto.
Aug 04, 2025
Two Democratic senators on Monday tore into their Republican counterparts for "sneaking" a provision into their party's massive budget legislation that they said would provide a "multibillion dollar bailout" for the American pharmaceutical industry.
In a letter sent to U.S. President Donald Trump, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) pointed out that the budget package "includes provisions that block or delay the Trump administration from using Medicare drug price negotiation to lower the price of certain blockbuster drugs" including "the top-selling cancer drugs in the world, such as Keytruda, Opdivo, Darzalex, and more."
The senators explained that Keytruda was originally due to become subject to Medicare price negotiations starting next year, but that has now been put on ice by the GOP's legislation.
"We see no policy rationale whatsoever for delaying the... ability to negotiate lower prices on these drugs other than handing money over to the industry," they charged. "Because of you and congressional Republicans, seniors will continue to face astronomical, unaffordable costs for lifesaving cancer treatments."
The senators noted the cruel irony of this gift to the pharmaceutical industry was that Republicans offset its cost by slashing roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, a move that's projected to strip health insurance from millions of Americans.
"Republicans were able to find billions of dollars to bailout the pharmaceutical industry in their multitrillion tax bill, but you claimed that fiscal austerity required you to enact the largest healthcare cuts in history, terminating coverage for more than 15 million Americans and hiking healthcare costs for everyone, even imposing a 'sick tax' on the lowest income Americans," the senators argued. "Republicans' budget bill benefited the ultrawealthy and big corporations, like Big Pharma, with tax cuts and bailouts at the expense of working and middle-class Americans' healthcare."
The senators also slammed Trump's decision to eschew Medicare price negotiations of the kind first employed by former U.S. President Joe Biden's administration after the passage of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that authorized such negotiations for a limited set of drugs for the first time. Instead, they pointed out that Trump has demanded pharmaceutical companies cut prices on Americans by raising them everywhere else in the world, which they described as a "flashy, empty announcement."
Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, similarly dismissed Trump's recent letters to pharmaceutical companies last week as a completely ineffective approach to lowering prescription drug costs.
"If President Trump was serious about lowering drug prices for Americans, instead of promising to help drug corporations profiteer in other countries, he would work with Congress to pass legislation to lower prices here so Big Pharma can no longer charge U.S. patients and taxpayers the highest prices in the world," he said.
Trump in recent days has been making a number of mathematically impossible promises to lower the cost of drugs for Americans by as much as "1,200%," which would mean that pharmaceutical companies would be paying Americans substantial sums of money in exchange for taking their drugs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Nicole Shanahan Demands Senators Confirm RFK Jr.—Or Else
"I know entitled rich people think they can buy Nevada's Senate seat—they can't," said one Democratic senator. "I work for Nevada, not billionaires like Nicole Shanahan."
Jan 30, 2025
Nicole Shanahan, the billionaire former running mate of erstwhile Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is threatening political retribution against any senator who does not vote to confirm Kennedy as Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's health and human services secretary.
This week, Shanahan vowed to "personally fund" primary challenges against senators who don't support Kennedy's nomination to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
"This is a bipartisan message, and it comes directly from me," Shanahan said in a video posted Monday on the social media platform X. "While Bobby may be willing to play nice, I won't."
Shanahan specifically admonished more than a dozen senators, including Democrats, Republicans, and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"The two candidates I helped elect, Sen. Raphael Warnock and Sen. Jon Ossoff, please know I will be watching your votes very closely,” she said, singling out the two Georgia Democrats. "I will make it my personal mission that you lose your seats in the Senate if you vote against the future health of America's children."
At least one senator responded to Shanahan's threat. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)
said on social media Wednesday: "Big Pharma spent millions against me and I didn't back down. Koch spent millions against me, I didn't back down. I know entitled rich people think they can buy Nevada's Senate seat—they can't. I work for Nevada, not billionaires like Nicole Shanahan."
Shanahan—who reportedly gained most of her wealth from her previous marriage to Google co-founder Sergey Brin—poured millions of dollars of her own money into Kennedy's longshot presidential campaign before the conspiracy theorist chose her as his running mate. She was also among the early voices urging Kennedy to drop his independent White House bid and throw his support behind Trump, as he ultimately did.
Before that, Shanahan donated to prominent Democratic politicians including the party's presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, in 2016 and former President Joe Biden in 2020. Kennedy, the son of former Democratic Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (Mass.) and nephew of former President John F. Kennedy—both of whom were assassinated in the 1960s—was also a longtime Democrat prior to his switch last year.
A wide range of public health experts oppose Kennedy's nomination. Last month, a group of 75 Nobel laureates urged senators to reject his appointment, citing his deadly history of amplifying discredited conspiracy theories and his "lack of credentials or relevant experience in medicine, science, public health, or administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Democrat Slammed for Pushing 'Unprecedented Giveaway' to Mining Industry
One campaigner argued that rather than serving mining companies, Congress should pass "meaningful reforms that will protect communities, special places, and sacred sites from unnecessary destruction."
Apr 25, 2023
Green groups on Tuesday blasted U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto for introducing legislation that would reverse a recent judicial decision and alter federal mining policy in ways welcomed by industry but lambasted by land defenders.
Noting the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last year that upheld an earlier ruling against the Rosemont copper mine in Arizona, Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) unveiled the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which is also co-sponsored by Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.).
"The bill would amend a 1993 budget reconciliation act but primarily clarifies definitions of activities and rights central to the 1872 Mining Law," The Associated Press explained. "The language is intended to insulate mines from the more onerous and likely most expensive standards imposed on the industry by the 9th Circuit ruling, which was a significant departure from long-established mining practices that environmentalists have fought for decades."
"Instead of making it easier for irresponsible mining companies to exploit our public lands, we should modernize our mining laws to deliver a more fair, just, and equitable hardrock mine permitting process."
While Cortez Masto—who last year narrowly won reelection and last month joined a failed GOP effort to gut water protections—highlighted that Nevada is home to "critical minerals... key to our clean energy future," and what the mining industry means for jobs in her state, environmentalists stressed that her bill would make it easier for companies to dump rock waste on and further disrupt public lands.
"This legislation is an unprecedented giveaway to the mining industry, one that would further entrench the legacy of injustice to Indigenous communities and damage to public lands held in trust for future generations," declared Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel.
"We need mining reform that serves the needs of mining-impacted communities and taxpayers," she argued. "Instead of making it easier for irresponsible mining companies to exploit our public lands, we should modernize our mining laws to deliver a more fair, just, and equitable hardrock mine permitting process."
Earthjustice senior legislative representative Blaine Miller-McFeeley agreed that the bill "is a wholesale giveaway to mining companies" that "have long abused" the 1872 law by "unlawfully claiming a right to destroy public lands to maximize profits."
Cortez Masto's bill "would condone that illegal practice, essentially giving mining companies a free pass to occupy our public lands and lock out other uses—including for recreation, conservation, clean energy, and cultural purposes," Miller-McFeeley said.
"Mining companies have left a trail of environmental destruction and human health catastrophes as a direct result of poorly regulated practices and corporate greed," he added. "As we prepare to source the raw materials needed to build out the clean energy infrastructure of the future, we urge Congress to stop doing the bidding of greedy mining corporations and instead, work on meaningful reforms that will protect communities, special places, and sacred sites from unnecessary destruction."
Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, also called out the Nevada Democrat's push, charging that "Sen. Cortez Masto has become a mining-industry puppet and is throwing communities, tribes, and wildlife under the bus."
"The United States should be leading the world in setting the highest environmental standards for mining, especially for minerals needed for the renewable energy transition," Donnelly continued. "Instead, she's leading a race to the bottom where the only winners are mining company shareholders."
The proposal exposes local divisions: The Nevada Mining Association, the Northern Nevada Central Labor Council, and the company Nevada Vanadium all applauded it, but other groups, such as Save the Scenic Santa Ritas Association, slammed the bill.
"Sen. Cortez Masto's legislation would betray U.S. taxpayers by greenlighting a project that would foreclose recreation opportunities, including hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, and bird-watching, and threaten the water supply of ranches and nearby homeowners," said Thomas Nelson, the association's board president. "Corporate, industrial extraction industries should never be given free rein to damage public lands for the purpose of making profits. We must not exclude the public from the public lands that their tax dollars sustain."
John Hadder, director of Great Basin Resource Watch, warned that the legislation "would allow New Moly Mining Corp. to cover over federally protected public springs at Mount Hope here in Nevada with millions of tons of waste rock and create a forever source of water pollution."
"Given the enormous ecological and significant climate footprint of mining, the permitting needs to be careful and judicious," Hadder asserted. "This bill does just the opposite."
The Rosemont decision has already been cited in two other judicial decisions. As the AP detailed:
U.S. District Judge Miranda Du in Reno ruled in February that the Bureau of Land Management had violated the law when it approved Lithium Americas' plans for the Thacker Pass mine near the Nevada-Oregon line. But she allowed construction to begin last month while the bureau works to bring the project into compliance with federal law.
The 9th Circuit has scheduled oral arguments June 26 on environmentalists' appeal of Du's refusal to halt the mine even though she found it was approved illegally.
Last month, U.S. Judge Larry Hicks in Reno also adopted the Rosemont standard in his ruling that nullified Bureau of Land Management approval of a Nevada molybdenum mine and prohibited any construction.
As Cortez Masto and the other co-sponsors unveiled their bill on Tuesday, Native elders and other land defenders blocked construction on the Thacker Pass mine, with some holding a banner that said: "Enough is enough! Stop the destruction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Veto Expected After 4 Senate Dems, Sinema Help GOP Gut Water Protections
"The senators who voted to remove these protections shamefully put corporate profits over our right to clean drinking water, healthy water-reliant economies, and sustainable water supply," said one critic.
Mar 29, 2023
U.S. President Joe Biden's vow to veto a Republican-led resolution that would gut his administration's water protections did not stop four Democratic senators and one ex-Democrat from helping the GOP send the measure to his desk on Wednesday.
Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), and Jon Tester (Mont.) along with now-Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) joined with all Republicans present to pass H.J. Res. 27 in a 53-43 vote.
Passed by the GOP-controlled House early this month mostly along party lines—nine Democrats supported the measure while just one Republican opposed it—the resolution takes aim at regulations finalized by the Biden administration in late December.
"A majority of senators elected to represent the American people have chosen to side with corporate polluters."
Reversing one of many rollbacks under former President Donald Trump, under the Biden rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) that are protected under the Clean Water Act as "traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters."
In an early March policy statement threatening what is now expected to be Biden's second veto, the White House explained that "H.J. Res. 27 would leave Americans without a clear 'waters of the United States' definition. The increased uncertainty would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities."
"Farmers would be left wondering whether artificially irrigated areas remain exempt or not," the White House warned. "Construction crews would be left wondering whether their waterfilled gravel pits remain exempt or not."
"Compared to the kind of uncertain, fragmented, and watered-down regulatory system that H.J. Res. 27 might compel," the White House added, "the final rule will secure substantial and valuable benefits each year in critical flood protections, enhanced water quality, and the treasured recreational activities—fishing, swimming, boating, and more—that fill the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of U.S. households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams."
If they all choose to run, Manchin, Rosen, Sinema, and Tester, are up for reelection next year. Cortez Masto, who narrowly won reelection in November, told the Nevada Appeal on Wednesday that the Silver State's "unique water needs are unlike any other state, and this administration's rule forces our local governments, farmers, ranchers, and businesses to jump through unnecessary red tape."
As E&E News noted Wednesday:
One vulnerable Democrat facing a tough reelection campaign opted to stick with his party. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly's vote had previously been an open question, but during a recent hearing, he repeatedly questioned the use of the Congressional Review Act to target WOTUS.
The CRA allows for a simple majority to overturn recent rules, but also hinders the government's ability to pursue a similar rule. Kelly expressed concern the resolution might unravel any efforts to make Clean Water Act enforcement suitable to states like his.
"Restoring critical protections for waters across the country should be a simple and easily supported effort. Yet a majority of senators elected to represent the American people have chosen to side with corporate polluters and play politics with one of our most critical natural resources," declared Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous. "This is inexcusable."
"Access to clean, safe water is a human right and should never be determined by where someone lives, how much money they make, or the color of their skin," he said. "The Sierra Club has and will continue to work with our allies to protect our waters, and we call President Biden to swiftly veto the WOTUS Congressional Review Act resolution."
Earthjustice senior legislative counsel Julián González similarly called out the senators and called for a swift veto, while also warning that "protections for clean water are constantly under attack from polluting industries, and this will not be the last Republican attempt to significantly weaken the Clean Water Act during this Congress."
"The Clean Water Restoration Rule is grounded in the scientific consensus of how waters and wetlands are hydrologically connected and incredibly important to protect," González stressed. "This is a welcome step forward from the Trump administration's pro-polluter dirty water."
"Unfortunately, instead of relying on the science, Republicans—and some Democrats—are choosing to ally themselves with dirty industries whose mission is to eliminate any and all meaningful protections for our waters," he continued. "The senators who voted to remove these protections shamefully put corporate profits over our right to clean drinking water, healthy water-reliant economies, and sustainable water supply."
"We urge members of Congress who supported this resolution to reflect on why they are tossing aside concerns of people from all walks of life who value our waters in order to support those who would decimate the Clean Water Act if they had their way," González added. "Finally, we applaud President Biden for indicating he will reject this effort and veto this resolution when it reaches his desk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Windfall Profits, Chevron Set to Buy Back $75 Billion in Shares
"Chevron should not be doing $75 billion in stock buybacks while price gouging American families and accelerating the climate crisis," said one critic.
Jan 26, 2023
Climate and consumer advocates reacted angrily Thursday to Chevron's announcement of a planned $75 billion stock buyback amid record profits and a worsening planetary emergency exacerbated by the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels.
California-based Chevron said Wednesday it would start buying back shares on April 1, and that the new repurchase will be three times the size of the last one, which began in 2019. Bloomberg notes that the new buyback is equivalent to nearly a quarter of Chevron's market value.
"Companies like Chevron are doing absolutely massive stock buybacks after price gouging working families for over a year," tweeted Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-181). "Then these same companies will come back hat-in-hand begging for more tax breaks and tax cuts."
Brian Vickers, a business administration professor at Northeastern State University in Oklahoma, tweeted, "I kept saying gas price increases were straight-up price gouging and not indicative of the price of oil, and here's all the proof I was right."
The Biden administration—which despite a worsening climate emergency has been pressing oil companies to increase production to keep gas prices down—denounced Chevron's planned buyback.
"For a company that claimed not too long ago that it was 'working hard' to increase oil production, handing out $75 billion to executives and wealthy shareholders sure is an odd way to show it," White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said in response to news of the buyback.
Thursday's announcement came as Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies are set to announce a record $199 billion in collective 2022 profits, 50% higher than the previous record set over a decade ago, according to Bloomberg.
Chevron's $11.2 billion third-quarter profit last year was its second-highest on record and nearly double the $6.1 billion it reported during the same period in 2021.
Reacting to Chevron's impending buyback, biogeochemist and Earth sciences professor Gabriel Filippelli said "so much is wrong about this."
"Record profits for Chevron and the [Biden] administration is mad that they don't pump that into more drilling?" he asked. "They should pump it into more renewables and a real divestment strategy to stop producing their deadly product."
On Wednesday, U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) reintroduced the Fair and Transparent Gas Prices Act, which the lawmakers argue "would give the Federal Trade Commission the tools it needs to investigate unfair practices, provide market transparency, and prevent price gouging by Big Oil and gas companies."
Last March, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would tax excess oil company profits and use the proceeds to pay American households a quarterly rebate. That same month in the Senate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the Ending Corporate Greed Act, which would impose a 95% tax on the windfall profits of major companies.
President Joe Biden has threatened to back a windfall profits tax on Big Oil unless companies ramp up production, but has not yet done so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Re-Nominated by Biden, Senate Urged to Confirm 'Public Interest Champion' to FCC
"The Senate must move swiftly to confirm Gigi Sohn so that the FCC can get back to work protecting people's basic human rights and ensuring access to affordable, open Internet for all," said Evan Greer of Fight for the Future.
Jan 04, 2023
Digital and consumer rights advocates on Wednesday called on the U.S. Senate to swiftly confirm longtime public advocate Gigi Sohn to the Federal Communications Commission after President Joe Biden announced her nomination for a second time, more than a year after the telecom industry launched a spending blitz to keep Sohn from joining the regulatory panel.
Biden first nominated the lawyer and longtime net neutrality defender in October 2021, but with a 50-50 deadlock in the Senate before the midterm elections and some corporate Democrats targeted by telecom lobbyists who pushed them to oppose Sohn, the president did not garner enough support for his nominee last year.
Following the elections of Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Sohn could have a better chance of being confirmed this time around.
"The new Senate has a renewed mandate to serve the public interest. It can start by confirming Sohn immediately."
"After an unacceptable delay of over a year, the Senate must move swiftly to confirm Sohn so the FCC is empowered to prevent consumer abuses and work toward an open and affordable internet," said Maria Langholz, communications director for Demand Progress. "All eyes are on the Senate. It's time for the Senate to confirm Gigi Sohn, a public interest champion, and dismiss outright the bought-and-paid-for, false controversies spun up by the telecom industry and its lobbyists."
As Common Dreams reported in April, a nonprofit founded by former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) spent $250,000 on a social media campaign targeting Sens. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), claiming Sohn was insufficiently committed to expanding rural broadband access. Two of Heitkamp's biggest donors when she was in office were AT&T and Comcast, which have fought against restoring net neutrality protections that were gutted by the FCC during the Trump administration.
With the FCC deadlocked, the panel has been unable to vote on the protections, which keep internet service providers from blocking or throttling service and offering paid "fast lanes" for certain websites.
The delay in confirming Sohn has "harmed millions, preventing the deadlocked agency from passing or strengthening crucial policies that would help people connect and communicate," said Craig Aaron, co-CEO of Free Press Action.
Contrary to the claims of Heitkamp's One Country Project and other telecom-aligned groups, said Aaron, as a commissioner Sohn will "ensure that the benefits of broadband reach everyone" as well as fighting "on behalf of working families trying to pay their rising monthly bills" and curbing "the runaway media consolidation that has decimated local journalism and harmed Black and Brown communities."
"Industry spent millions of dollars on astroturf groups to repeatedly misrepresent Sohn's record in the media and on Capitol Hill," added Aaron. "They've lied repeatedly about her record and principles—but their corrupt and dirty tricks aren't working anymore. The new Senate has a renewed mandate to serve the public interest. It can start by confirming Sohn immediately."
Evan Greer, director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, denounced the "smear campaign" that led to an "inexcusable" delay in Sohn's confirmation last year, helped in part by Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell's (D-Wash.) decision to hold a second hearing on Biden's nominee last February instead of bringing the nomination to the Senate floor for a vote.
"There's no mystery about what has caused the inexcusable delay in confirming Sohn, a highly qualified nominee with decades of experience and a powerful track record advocating for transparency and accountability," said Greer. "Gigi Sohn has been the target of a dark money smear campaign funded by telecom giants who want to pick their own regulator. Embarrassingly, Senate Democratic leadership have allowed these unfounded attacks to drag out the process."
While the Biden administration and Senate Democrats have said protecting the rights of those who seek abortion care are top priorities, Greer noted, they have allowed a delay that's been "disastrous for privacy and reproductive rights."
"The FCC has significant authority to protect the privacy of people seeking and providing abortions by cracking down on the collection, sale, and sharing of cell phone location data," she said. "But right now the agency is sitting on its hands, because it can’t do any of these things without a fifth commissioner."
"Enough is enough," she added. "The Senate must move swiftly to confirm Gigi Sohn so that the FCC can get back to work protecting people's basic human rights and ensuring access to affordable, open Internet for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Hottest US Senate Races on a Very Hot Planet
These contest in key states are all critical for climate-action, reproductive choice, and American democracy itself.
Nov 01, 2022
Vote Climate U.S. PAC's priority U.S. Senate races are all very close and could go either way on Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th. They are all critical for climate-action, reproductive choice and American democracy itself. According to Cook Political Report, all of our priority candidates including: John Fetterman (D), Pennsylvania; U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D), Nevada; U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock (D), Georgia; U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D), Arizona and Mandela Barnes (D), Wisconsin, are in toss-up races.
There is no comparison between our priority candidates and their opponents on climate change.
Vote Climate U.S. PAC is the only website in the country to provide a climate change Voter's Guide for candidates for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Governors and Statehouses (partial). (Always click the green + button for detailed research.) Like most Voter's Guides, we score incumbents on pivotal climate votes in Congress. We also assess a candidate's position: what do candidates say about the issue; leadership: what do they do; and putting a fee on carbon polluters. The average of those scores creates their Climate Calculation.
In 2022 for the first time, we indicate if a candidate supports Roe v. Wade. We see a strong connection between climate and choice, so while it is not part of our Climate Calculations, we have included support or opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, in our national climate change voter's guide.
There is no comparison between our priority candidates and their opponents on climate change. Four of five of the opponents have a Climate Calculation of 7.5 or less and the other one scores 28.75, all failing grades on any scale. Every opponent opposes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and many of them are 2020 election deniers. These are the races that we believe will most advance climate action and reproductive choice.
In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman's (D) Climate Calculation is 92.5. He understands the importance of action on climate change as a top priority issue. On his official campaign website, Fetterman states, "I believe that climate change is an existential threat, and we need to transition to clean energy as quickly as possible."
In our 2020 Vote Climate U.S. PAC analysis of the partisan divide on Climate Calculations, with U.S. Senate challengers, the Republican mean was 17.7, the Democratic mean was 90.7, with a +73 difference for the Democrats. The partisan divide was worse for incumbents. And that was an improvement from the 2018 party analysis. Our 2022 partisan analysis will be available soon.
Still, Democrats have major room for improvement on the issue. America needs leadership for climate-specific legislation, like a fee on carbon polluters. For example, for a Climate Calculation of 100, candidate John Fetterman would need to take a strong, public position and advocate in favor of a U.S. fee on carbon polluters. His position is unclear. He seems to lean a bit heavily on fossil fuels, saying, "But we must [transition to clean energy] in a way that preserves the union way of life for the thousands of workers currently employed or supported by the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania and the communities where they live." We must get off fossil fuels within a decade, if we hope to slow climate change. Fetterman supports Roe v. Wade. (See our Voter's Guide Scoring Criteria for Challengers for more information. Both candidates in this PA race are challengers, so they share the same criteria.)
John Fetterman's (D) Climate Calculation of 92.5 compares to his opponent whose overall Climate Calculation is an abysmal 7.5 out of a possible 100. The opponent disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-made, from burning fossil fuels. He opposes Roe.
In Nevada Catherine Cortez Master (D) has a Climate Calculation of 87.5. In a 2019 press release on climate change innovation, the Senator stated, "We cannot put off solutions to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and we can't ignore the effects of climate change, visible all around us." She consistently votes pro-climate and shows leadership by making climate change a top priority issue. In a 'Medium' blog post the Senator wrote, "I'm also proud to support the Clean Energy for America Act, which would reduce carbon pollution over the next decade."
As an incumbent U.S. Senator, she received a 100 on her position, 100 on her climate votes, 100 on her leadership, but a 50 on her carbon fee score. She would need to take a strong position, advocating for a fee on carbon polluters for a Climate Calculation of 100. Her position on that issue is unclear. If she clarified that position, she could be Vote Climate U.S. PAC, Climate Hero. She supports Roe. (See Voter's Guide Scoring Criteria for Incumbents for more information.)
Her opponent has a Climate Calculation of 28.75 because he does not take a clear position on whether climate change is real and human-made, from burning fossil fuels and he has no known, or an inconsistent position on a U.S. carbon fee. He opposes Roe.
In Georgia, incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock (D) has a Climate Calculation of 81.25. For position, he got a score of 100. For votes, we picked 5 U.S. Senate votes and Senator Warnock received a 100 on votes. But for Vote Climate U.S. PAC, there is more to a Climate Calculation than what candidates say and how they vote. It's also about what they do, also known as leadership. If incumbents don't make public statements and advocate for action on climate change as a top priority issue, which would earn them a score of 100, but they do still advocate for climate action, they get a 75 on leadership, as Warnock does.
A carbon fee is a fee imposed on fossil fuels intended to dramatically reduce or eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide from those sources. A carbon fee would aid in the switch from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy and slow climate change and is a policy which Vote Climate U.S. PAC considers the singular, most effective.
For a Climate Calculation of 100, U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock, like many other of our priority candidates, would need to take a strong, public position and advocate in favor of a U.S. fee on carbon polluters. His position is unclear. Senator, your constituents and your country deserve to know where you stand on this issue. Since don't know, Senator Warnock got a 50 which means he has no known or inconsistent position on a U.S. carbon fee. Plus, we need stronger leadership on the issue of climate change.
Warnock's opponent has a ridiculously low Climate Calculation of 7.5 because despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, he disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-made, from burning fossil fuels. He has no known, or an inconsistent position on a U.S. carbon fee. He is a 2020 election denier. He not only opposes Roe, but he has been accused of paying for several abortions for his former girlfriends. Right-wingers don't care because he is a vote for them, regardless of his hypocrisy. Let's hope that swing voters care and progressives turn out on Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th.
Our priority candidate in Arizona, Senator Mark Kelly (D) has a Climate Calculation of 82.5. He understands the importance of climate action as a top priority issue. On his campaign website, it states "Mark has seen the planet change from space, and wanting to stop that and protect our state and our planet is part of what inspired him to run. Mark knows that if we harness the power of American ingenuity and determination, we can mitigate the risks of climate change."
Senator Mark Kelly has demonstrated leadership by advocating for climate action. In a 2019 Facebook post, Senator Kelly told, "Congress that we need immediate action on climate action." In an October 2021 interview with White Mountain Independent it said, "Regarding energy and climate change, Senator Kelly recognizes the role that traditional fossil fuels play in the production of electricity and the creation of jobs in Arizona. He also sees Arizona's drought and wildfire conditions being made worse by the effects of climate change." We do not know his position on a fee on carbon polluters. He supports Roe. His opponent has a Climate Calculation of 7.5. He opposes Roe.
In Wisconsin, priority candidate Mandela Barnes (D) Climate Calculation is 92.5. She understands the importance of action on climate change as a top priority issue. In a video on his official campaign website, Candidate Barnes states, "Climate change is already taking a toll on our communities, from our cities to our family farms. We've got once in a generation storms coming every year now. We need bold, powerful action to address climate change that breathes new life into the manufacturing industry." We don't know her position on a fee on carbon. She supports Roe. Her opponent demonstrates a lack of leadership with public statements, advocacy or votes against climate action. He opposes Roe.
Please use and share our Vote Climate U.S. PAC Voter's Guide for candidates for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Governors and Statehouses (partial). (Always click the green + button for detailed research.). Vote Climate and Vote Choice on Tuesday, November 8th.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy