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
house judiciary committee
Morgan Stanley Latest Wall Street Giant to Ditch Net-Zero Coalition
Earlier this week, Bank of America and Citigroup also said they were leaving the Net-Zero Banking Alliance.
Jan 02, 2025
On Thursday, the Wall Street titan Morgan Stanley became the latest financial institution to leave the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a United Nations-convened group of banks committed to "aligning their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050."
The defections keep piling up. Earlier this week, Bank of America and Citigroup said they were leaving the alliance, and earlier in December Goldman Sachs Group and Wells Fargo announced they were doing the same.
“We will continue to report on our progress as we work towards our 2030 interim financed-emissions targets,” Morgan Stanley toldBloomberg in an email.
While Morgan Stanley didn't offer an explanation for the exit, according to Reuters, financial firms have repeatedly found themselves in the crosshairs of some members of the GOP who argue that corporate efforts to limit fossil fuels run afoul of antitrust law.
Last summer, the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee published a report accusing financial institutions colluding to impose "radical environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals on American companies." Their probe was largely focused on another climate group, Climate Action 100+, which is made up of financial institutions who strive to engage companies they invest in on climate issues. That coalition has also experienced a number of defections.
In December, 11 GOP-led states sued three asset managers in federal court, arguing that the firms had "artificially constrained the supply of coal, significantly diminished competition in the markets for coal, increased energy prices for American consumers, and produced cartel-level profits" for the firms in violation of antitrust law.
Despite the stated goals of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, Morgan Stanley and other firms who are a part of the alliance have remained a major financial life lines for fossil fuel companies.
According to a report published by a group of NGOs in 2023, 56 of the largest banks in the Net-Zero Banking Alliance—including Morgan Stanley—have provided nearly $270 billion in the form of loans and underwriting to more than 100 "major fossil fuel expanders," from Saudi Aramco to ExxonMobil to Shell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Privacy Advocates Alarmed as House Resumes Spying Powers Fight
Rights groups are particularly concerned about reporting that parts of the debate could be held in "secret session."
Feb 12, 2024
Privacy rights advocates and experts are sounding the alarm this week as members of the U.S. House of Representatives dive back into a contentious battle over reforming warrantless government surveillance powers that historically have been abused and consider closed-door debate.
House Republicans on Monday unveiled the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act and announced that the Committee on Rules will meet Wednesday to discuss the bill, which combines two previously competing proposals focused on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Section 702—which Congress temporarily extended with an annual defense package in December—only allows warrantless surveillance targeting foreigners located outside the United States, but Americans' data is also collected, and several agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been widely lambasted for misusing it.
"Rushing to pass an anti-reform bill, subject only to very limited (and partially secret) debate, is a flagrant attempt to sidestep the strong, bipartisan movement for surveillance reform."
The new bill "more closely aligns with the original proposal from the House Intelligence Committee over that of its Judiciary competitor, focusing on more reforms at the FBI to address misuse of the powerful spy tool," according toThe Hill. "But it does not include Judiciary's hope for a warrant requirement—something deemed a red line for the intelligence community but nonetheless a top priority for privacy advocates in Congress."
The outlet also noted that "the process of bringing the bill to the floor will push the House to return to a previously floated idea from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to do a queen-of-the-hill-style debate format that would allow for consideration of amendments—including a potential amendment on a warrant requirement."
Also stressing the divisiveness of the warrant policy, Wireddetailed Monday:
Several aides attributed the drawn-out nature of the fight, at least in part, to the relative naivete of the House speaker on national security matters, saying that, with little experience in the area, Johnson had not previously had the opportunity to be captured by the intelligence community—powerful interests accused by congressional staffers of routinely deploying "fear tactics" to defend surveillance operations plagued by regular error and abuse.
Johnson's lack of any intelligence background, staffers say, would have likely increased his dependence on House intelligence staffers, who, while cultivating a sense of awe due to their access to national secrets, routinely behave as ambassadors between the spy agencies and regular congressional staff.
Privacy advocates inside and outside the House continue to emphasize the need for a warrant requirement. They are also concerned about reporting from Politico's Jordain Carney late Sunday that some debate may occur in "secret session."
Yup, you're reading that right.\n\nMembers of Congress are considering a "secret session" to discuss reauthorizing surveillance powers. This secrecy goes against the core principles of democracy.\n\n\ud83d\udea8Call your member of Congress NOW to tell them to debate in the open \ud83d\udcde202-224-3121.— (@)
"Most lawmakers want major reform of Section 702. The Judiciary Committee's reform bill passed out of committee on a 35-2 vote," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program. "Intelligence Committee leaders know they can't win on an even playing field, so they're trying to use secrecy to avoid reform."
"Secret law is anathema to democracies, and making law in secret is the next worst thing. Open debate is a core feature of our democratic system," she continued, noting how uncommon secret sessions are. "House members should unite in opposition to this ploy and demand open debate on surveillance reform."
Responding to Goitein on social media, exiled American whistleblower Edward Snowden declared: "Secrecy and deceit must have no place in the making of American law. This effort to revive disgraced Bush-era practices in order to thwart a *reform bill* is a scandal. A genuine scandal."
Jeramie Scott, senior counsel and director of EPIC's Project on Surveillance Oversight was similarly critical, saying: "Rushing to pass an anti-reform bill, subject only to very limited (and partially secret) debate, is a flagrant attempt to sidestep the strong, bipartisan movement for surveillance reform. The American people deserve better."
Jake Laperruque of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Security and Surveillance Project—who backed the previous House Judiciary Committee bill—cast doubt on the new legislation's prospects given opposition from not only that panel but also the far-right Freedom Caucus, which has scheduled a Tuesday afternoon press conference.
Laperruque said Monday that "I don't think you can say with any certainty" that the bill would get support from a majority of Republicans, who narrowly control the House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Students Demanding Protection for Pro-Palestinian Activism Arrested at House Hearing on Campus Speech
"Palestinian students deserve to speak on the genocide of their families," said one protester as they were led out of the room by police.
Nov 08, 2023
The limits of the Republican-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee's views on freedom of speech were on full display Wednesday shortly after a hearing on "Free Speech on College Campuses" began, when several pro-Palestinian rights demonstrators were removed from the hearing room and arrested for speaking out.
The committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), invited representatives of conservative and pro-Zionist groups including Young Americans for Freedom and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to speak about what Jordan called "hostility towards certain points of view, in particular conservative points of view" amid growing outrage over Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza and the West Bank.
"With 'safe spaces' and 'free speech zones' aiming to protect students from violence," Jordan said in his opening remarks, "one would think Jewish students would have somewhere to turn as violent, pro-Hamas students take to their demonstrations and have harmed students on college campuses. That's not the case, as we will see in today's hearing."
But as the hearing got underway, protesters who were among the majority of Americans who support a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war currently raging in Gaza were promptly kicked out of the room for demanding that lawmakers consider how their speech has been suppressed since the war began.
One student demanded to know when speaking out against genocide "became antisemitism" as she reminded the committee that more than 4,200 children in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces so far as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government continues to insist it is targeting Hamas in retaliation for the group's October 7 attack on southern Israel.
"What is your right to speech if all of us are not free?" asked the protester as she was pulled out of the room by Capitol Police.
The Hill reported that 10 demonstrators were arrested after interrupting the hearing to say "Free Palestine," "Free Gaza," and "End the siege and the occupation now."
Journalist Dima Amro reported that police confiscated the protesters' keffiyehs and took them to the Capitol Police headquarters.
Jordan cited a "nearly 400% increase in antisemitic incidents, including harassment, vandalism, and assault" in the two weeks after the Hamas attack, but did not mention that the nation's largest Muslim civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reported that anti-Muslim violence and harassment reports tripled in October.
Despite their focus on free speech on college campuses, Republicans on the committee also did not appear disturbed by a call by the ADL and Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law—both of which were represented at the hearing—for universities to investigate campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
The groups accused SJP of "celebrating terrorism" and said it should be investigated for potentially "providing material support to Hamas."
Last week, the ACLU expressed its strong opposition to "any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses, and urged universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights."
"We recognize that colleges and universities are managing heightened threats and anguished tensions on their campuses while trying to keep students safe—and we take those concerns seriously," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "The devastating conflict in Israel and Palestine has embroiled campuses here at home, sometimes resulting in speech that includes terms we vehemently disagree with or even find offensive and repugnant. Yet it's precisely in times of crisis and fear that university leaders must remain firm in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus."
"A blanket call to investigate every chapter of a pro-Palestinian student group for 'material support to terrorists'— without even an attempt to cite evidence—is unwarranted, wrong, and dangerous," Romero added. "It echoes America's mistakes during the McCarthy era and is counterproductive. We urge college and university leaders to hold fast to our nation's best traditions and reject proposals to restrict constitutionally protected speech."
At the hearing Wednesday, one demonstrator told the committee that "Palestinian students deserve to speak on the genocide of their families" and called for lawmakers and universities to "stop silencing Palestinian students."
Jordan's hearing also follows the spreading of misinformation about pro-Palestinian rights demonstration at the University of California, Los Angeles and other schools where students chanted, "Israel, Israel, you can't hide: We charge you with genocide!" Social media users claimed the protesters were calling for a "Jewish genocide."
On Tuesday, Jordan and nearly all other House Republicans were joined by 22 Democrats in voting to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American member of the House, for her defense of the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which is commonly used at Palestinian rights protests.
"You are not offering a plurality of opinion," one protester told Jordan, "you are offering partisanship, and you are offering murder to more Gazans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular