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
steve scalise
Scalise Took $40K in Campaign Cash From PAC of CEO Accused of Oil Price Rigging
"Big Oil CEOs are out for themselves and the politicians who support their quest to drill for profit at the expense of the American people," said a spokesperson for Accountable.US, which highlighted the donation.
Jun 03, 2024
U.S. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise received a $40,000 campaign donation from the political action committee of a Big Oil CEO who allegedly colluded with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to drive up energy prices, the watchdog Accountable.US noted Monday.
Scalise (R-La.)—who has made opposing efforts to protect public lands from fossil fuel drilling a top legislative priority—took the money from the Williams Companies PAC, whose board includes Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield, who was accused last month by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of holding private conversations with the OPEC cartel in which he allegedly assured members that his company would throttle production, creating an artificial scarcity in a bid to boost oil prices.
The majority leader ranks fourth among all House lawmakers in 2023-24 campaign contributions from oil and gas interests, according to the watchdog OpenSecrets. His $325,833 in Big Oil contributions trails only Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), who took $572,421; former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who received $335,399; and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who got $328,019.
"If Congressman Scalise wants to protect American consumers he should start by holding accountable Big Oil price gougers."
"Big Oil CEOs are out for themselves and the politicians who support their quest to drill for profit at the expense of the American people," Accountable.US spokesperson Chris Marshall said in a statement Monday. "So if Congressman Scalise wants to protect American consumers he should start by holding accountable Big Oil price gougers."
The FTC alleges in a complaint that "Sheffield has, through public statements and private communications, attempted to collude with the representatives of [OPEC] and a related cartel of other oil-producing countries known as OPEC+ to reduce output of oil and gas, which would result in Americans paying higher prices at the pump, to inflate profits for his company."
The regulator subsequently barred Sheffield from joining the board of ExxonMobil, which bought Pioneer, over the alleged collusion.
"Mr. Sheffield's past conduct makes it crystal clear that he should be nowhere near Exxon's boardroom," FTC Bureau of Competition Deputy Director Kyle Mach said in a statement last month. "American consumers shouldn't pay unfair prices at the pump simply to pad a corporate executive's pocketbook."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the upper chamber's floor Monday to reiterate his call for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate Big Oil collusion and price fixing.
"It's not hard to feel the frustration—the sheer exasperation—felt by millions when America's biggest oil companies rake in record profits but still raise prices at the pump. It is deeply, deeply unfair—and now we have reason to believe that in some cases it may be unlawful," the senator said.
Schumer called the FTC allegations against Sheffield "very, very troubling."
"This is what frustrates Americans so much about Big Oil: Even when they're making money hand over fist they'll keep raising prices on us, they will keep squeezing us for everything we've got," he said. "And now they may—may—have crossed the line into unlawful behavior."
"So the DOJ needs to step in and determine if any laws against collusion or price-fixing have been broken," Schumer added. "At minimum, the American people deserve to know if Big Oil executives are conspiring with each other or with OPEC behind our backs to illegally raise prices at the pump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Rips GOP for Trying to 'Distract From Their Own Incompetence' With Anti-Iran Bills
"The country and the world need real leadership from the House of Representatives in this moment, not resolutions designed purposefully to increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war or worse."
Apr 16, 2024
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday accused her Republican colleagues of dangerously trying to cloak their own legislative impotence in a flurry of anti-Iran bills—including a bipartisan proposal to ban Americans from traveling to the country.
"Following last weekend's unprecedented response by Iran to Israel's attack on its consulate, the Republican majority is explicitly leveraging a series of bills to further escalate tensions in the Middle East," Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "This is a blatant attempt to distract from their own incompetence."
On Monday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) published this week's proposed bills and resolutions, which include 15 separate measures condemning or sanctioning Iran following the retaliatory missile and drone attack launched by Tehran against Israel last weekend.
"In light of Iran's unjustified attack on Israel, the House will move from its previously announced legislative schedule next week to instead consider legislation that supports our ally Israel and holds Iran and its terrorist proxies accountable," Scalise said in a statement.
Peace advocates expressed alarm over a bipartisan resolution introduced Tuesday by Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) calling for regime change in Iran—where the United States and United Kingdom led a 1953 coup that ensured the decadeslong rule of a repressive monarch that ended just before the current Islamist regime took power 45 years ago this month.
"Decades of a tyrannical regime in Tehran—destabilizing the Middle East and intentionally spreading chaos throughout the region—has culminated in Iran's direct attack on our greatest ally, Israel," Weber said in a statement. "The rogue regime needs to be overthrown immediately."
One of the most controversial bills on the docket, introduced by Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), would urge the Biden administration to ban U.S. passport holders from traveling to Iran.
"This shameful idea that punishes people instead of governments was first proposed by [former U.S. President] Donald Trump's Iran envoy (and likely war criminal) Elliott Abrams," the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement. "Now, Rep. Wilson—who has deep ties to the [Mojahedin-e-Khalq] and other hawkish groups—is partnering with a hawkish Democrat on this proposal."
"Make no mistake: A ban as called for by this bill could have serious ramifications for anyone traveling to Iran, regardless of passport. We must make clear that this is unacceptable," NIAC continued.
"What if you could no longer travel to Iran to see relatives, visit a sick family member, attend a wedding, or claim an inheritance, out of fear of being imprisoned by the U.S. government?" the group added. "Seeing our loved ones isn't a crime, and no government, whether Iranian or American, should prevent us from doing so."
Congressional progressives say the anti-Iran bills are part of a scheme to deflect attention from what many social media users are calling the "#GOPShitShow," exemplified by yet another effort by far-right lawmakers to dethrone a Republican House speaker—less than six months after his GOP predecessor was ousted.
"The country and the world need real leadership from the House of Representatives in this moment, not resolutions designed purposefully to increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war or worse," said Ocasio-Cortez. "I will oppose any cynical effort to further inflame tensions, destroy a path to peace in the region, and further divide the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Fleeing on Jan. 6, GOP Lawmakers Urge Supreme Court to Keep Trump on Ballot
The ex-president also filed a brief and claimed that ballot disqualification efforts "promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado's lead."
Jan 18, 2024
Two-thirds of congressional Republicans on Thursday signed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state primary ballot.
The country's highest court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife was involved in efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 win—agreed to take the case earlier this month, just before the start of the presidential primary season, which is now underway.
With arguments scheduled for February 8, the deadline for Trump's brief on the merits as well as any amicus curiae—or "friend of the court"—briefs like the one submitted by 179 Republican lawmakers, was Thursday. It was led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), and other supporters include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
The voters behind the Colorado case—like other lawsuits and applications to election officials across the country—successfully argued that Trump's incitement of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, while Congress was certifying Biden's win, disqualifies him from serving as president again, because the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who took an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
After having to flee the Trump-supporting rioters three years ago, the Republican lawmakers argued Thursday that "the Colorado Supreme Court's decision encroaches on Congress' express powers," claiming that federal lawmakers "must pass authorizing legislation to enforce Section 3" of the 14th Amendment.
"The Colorado Supreme Court also erred by rejecting the argument that Section 3 is inapplicable to former President Trump, as he was never previously 'an officer of the United States,'" the GOP lawmakers claimed. The brief also contests the court's definitions of "engaged in" and "insurrection," and warns that the decision "will lead to widespread de-balloting of political opponents."
Trump's lawyers also filed his brief on Thursday, writing that "the court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado's lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots."
So far, only Maine has joined Colorado in disqualifying the twice-impeached former president during the primary stage, but that decision is on hold until the high court weighs in.
"Donald Trump sent an armed mob to the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the election, violating the Constitution and undermining the will of the people. He should not be given another opportunity to do so again," said Aly Belknap, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, in a statement Thursday.
"Former President Trump's eligibility for the Colorado ballot has broad-reaching implications for the permissible conduct of future presidents and other public officials," she continued. "In a strong democracy, elections are decided by the voters at the ballot box, not with violence or intimidation. The Supreme Court has the power to set a critical legal precedent to safeguard the future of American democracy: You cannot stoke political violence against your own country and hold elected office."
Belknap asserted that "the Supreme Court must embrace its role as an active defender of our Constitution, or else it may crumble under the immense pressure it will surely face in the years to come. Just as we argued in our brief to the Colorado Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court must not allow politics to supersede constitutional requirements."
Take Back the Court Action Fund's president, Sarah Lipton-Lubet, declared that "if congressional Republicans want Trump on the ballot, they should simply pass a bill exempting him from the 14th Amendment's prohibition on insurrectionists holding office, as the Constitution specifies. But they've grown so accustomed to the Supreme Court doing their dirty work that they're hoping it will again."
In addition to the 14th Amendment arguments, Trump is facing four ongoing criminal cases—two of which stem from his 2020 election interference. Despite all of that, he won the Iowa caucuses on Monday and is the leading Republican candidate in other states. On the Democratic side, Biden is seeking reelection.
This post has been updated with comment from Colorado Common Cause and Take Back the Court Action Fund.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular