This is outrageous. In the wake of President Obama’s woefully inadequate and largely Orwellian remarks on climate legislation in last night’s State of the Union address, several prominent environmental organizations released statements deliberately misleading their members.

Exhibit A: Repower America
Repower America sent an email to its list this afternoon that said the following (emphasis in original):

“And as our video shows, we have a President who understands that a clean energy revolution can create millions of American jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help keep our planet healthy for future generations.

Now it’s the Senate’s turn. Opposition from the fossil fuel industry is fierce, but we have a campaign plan to win. Together, we can make 2010 the year we begin to Repower America — and the first step is to help spread the word about Obama’s commitment to comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation”

The video included in the email omited the part of Obama’s speech in which he explained what he thinks needs to be done to create clean energy jobs.

Beginning at 1:17, the video includes Obama saying:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. [footage missing here] And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

Here is the part that was omitted:

That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.

These are quite plainly not the words of “a President who understands that a clean energy revolution can create millions of American jobs… and help keep our planet healthy for future generations.”

Exhibit B: Natural Resources Defense Council
Before the speech even ended, NRDC released a statement that included the following:

“President Obama issued a clear and unmistakable call to action tonight, charging the Senate to pass the comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we need…”

“Obama made an urgent case for clean energy legislation that promotes conservation as well as wind, solar and other sources of renewable power.”

“The president is right on the money.”

Does NRDC really consider referring to increased oil and gas drilling, clean coal investments and a new generation of nuclear plants as ‘clean energy’ to be a ‘clear and unmistakable call to action?

Does NRDC really think Obama made an ‘urgent case’ for ‘wind, solar and other sources of renewable power?’

Do they really think Obama’s promotion of dirty energy sources were ‘right on the money?’

NRDC’s statement goes beyond wishful thinking. Like the Repower America email above, it is deliberately misleading.

Exhibit C: National Wildlife Federation
Also prior to the end of the speech, the National Wildlife Federation issued a statement that included the following:

“His call for action tonight was clear. He is ready to help the Senate take on Big Oil and move a bipartisan clean energy and climate bill that creates jobs, limits pollution from energy companies, and reduces our dependency on oil from hostile nations.”

How can the president simultaneously advocate for ‘opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development’ and ‘help the Senate take on Big Oil?’ The two are mutually exclusive.

And can a bill that includes ‘increased oil and gas drilling, clean coal investments and a new generation of nuclear plants’ be considered a ‘clean energy and climate bill?’ I don’t think so. Does NWF?

All three of these organizations failed to push back on President Obama’s Orwellian characterization of oil, gas, nuclear and coal as ‘clean energy.’ If environmental organizations aren’t willing or able to tell the truth when the President promotes polluting industries as clean, who will? Fortunately, members of these three environmental groups aren’t likely to be fooled by their ridiculously optimistic interpretations of Obama’s remarks on ‘clean energy’ last night. If they are anything like Move On’s members, they like ‘clean energy innovation’, they don’t like ‘nukes and oil drilling,’ and they can tell the difference:

In addition to deliberately misleading their members and taking the risk of damaging their credibility, these organizations are enabling President Obama to greenwash polluting industries. Brad Johnson at Think Progress explains:

President Barack Obama’s discussion of energy policy in his first State of the Union address pandered to corporate interests while demoralizing his progressive supporters. Though Obama made a strong case that real investments in clean energy such as solar technology, advanced batteries, high-speed rail and efficiency are critical to job creation and international competitiveness, he also offered sops to established corporate polluters. Republicans, who spent much of the address refusing to applaud Obama’s call for economic reforms, ecstatically applauded his praise of polluting industry. Embracing the language of the John McCain campaign, Obama described nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal as “clean energy jobs.”

A few environmental organizations told the truth about President Obama’s speech last night.

Center for Biological Diversity:

“President Obama is correct that we need energy innovation and clean-energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean-energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised.”

Friends of the Earth:

“While we welcome President Obama’s call for comprehensive climate and energy reform — as well as his focus on job-creating high-speed rail and solar power — it was alarming to hear him refer last night to a variety of dirty energy sources, including nuclear, coal, offshore oil drilling and biofuels, as clean.

President Obama’s support for all these dirty energy sources was a big win for corporate polluters and their Washington lobbyists, but it was a kick in the gut to environmentalists across the country. The President was essentially telling these Americans that their voices don’t matter.”

Greenpeace:

In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama said that “(t)o create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” Despite his statement, the President knows better.

Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a “safe” dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it’s “clean.”

While I appreciate the candor displayed by these three groups, I am truly perplexed as to why Repower America, NRDC and NWF think misleading their members and enabling Obama’s greenwashing could possibly lead to anything good.

All three are invited to respond on this blog in order to clarify their positions.

Pete Altman:

The US Chamber seems to be going to great lengths these days persuade Congress that it really wants to help pass climate legislation. But a very different message is coming through its blogs, tweets and unscripted comments.

We think everyone should know what else the US Chamber is saying, so we have updated our “WhoDoestheUSChamberRepresent.org” website with our latest Politico ad, which is running today.

Here is the ad:

The hits keep coming for the embattled United States Chamber of Commerce. On Saturday, I wrote about the Chamber’s overwhelming hypocrisy on climate legislation:

While the Chamber claims it “continues to support Federal climate legislation”, it is actually continuing its 17-year old campaign against it. Representative Ed Markey on Thursday issued a point-by-point explanation of how his legislation, which the House passed in June, meets all of the Chamber’s criteria for successful legislation. Energy Secretary Chu even took a few shots on Thursday as well, but the ever-defiant chamber remains unrepentant.

This follows an unprecedented string of public relations disasters that have left the Chamber grasping for straws.

Pete Altman at NRDC is keeping track of the fallout over the last few weeks regarding the Chamber’s climate change extremism:

Quit US Chamber over climate:  Apple, Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, PSEG, Levi Strauss & Co.

Quit US Chamber Board over climate: Nike.

Say Chamber doesn’t represent their views on climate: Johnson&Johnson, General Electric, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, Alcoa, Duke, Entergy, Microsoft.

It is starting to look like the only actor in the debate over clean energy legislation less credible than the Chamber of Commerce is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which is currently facing investigations for sending 14 fraudulent letters opposing the bill to members of Congress.

In the last few weeks a diverse group of activist, NGO and labor campaigns have launched to escalate the pressure on the Chamber and its member companies. Here is a brief summary of current efforts:

The Natural Resources Defense Council has been leading the fight.  In addition to Pete Altman’s prolific coverage of the story as it develops, they have launched a website — whodoesthechamberrepresent.org — to ask the question: “Who Does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Really Represent?”

Credo Mobile sent an email to their customers on Thursday with the subject line “Earth to Chamber of Commerce: You’re killing me”:

We can’t let this stand. Help us keep up the momentum and join us in asking every CEO serving on the Chamber of Commerce board to quit the Chamber and renounce its radical stance.

The science is clear. And the Chamber is feeling the heat.

Click here to urge CEOs on the board of the Chamber of Commerce board members quit the Chamber and join the planet.

Kevin Grandia applied pressure directly to Toyota two weeks ago, calling out the company’s inconsistency in a piece at DeSmogBlog:

If Toyota is genuinely committed to sustainability as they say they are, then they can can take their lead from Nike, Exelon and others and stop supporting the US Chamber and their attack on the Obama administration’s clean energy and climate change reforms. If they don’t leave the US Chamber, then we know where their motivations truly lie.

Move On followed up on Grandia’s pressure on Toyota, writing in an email blast to members on Friday:

If Toyota is as “green” as they claim, why are they supporting a massive effort to kill President Obama’s clean energy plans?

Toyota needs to know consumers won’t stand for this. Can you ask Toyota to quit the Chamber of Commerce? If you’ve owned a Toyota, be sure to mention it when you call.

If major companies like Toyota quit the Chamber, members of Congress will be less likely to listen to the Chamber’s lobbyists.

For years, the Chamber of Commerce has pursued a right-wing agenda out of step with the business interests of many of its members. This year, they’ve launched an all-out lobbying blitz to block all of Obama’s goals—from climate to health care to fixing the economy. If the Chamber has less influence in Washington, our country has a real chance for change.

Call on Toyota to quit the Chamber of Commerce:

Toyota
(212) 223-0303

The Service Employees International Union is also running a campaign against the Chamber, petitioning Senators to “Break Up with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce”:

There’s an exodus from the corporate front group over its extreme views. We must use this opportunity to further isolate the U.S. Chamber as an out-of-touch outfit that only serves the interest of a handful of greedy CEOs.

The U.S. Chamber can’t be taken seriously. Your senators need to know this – the corporate front group is in Congress every day, lobbying for its extremist positions. They need to be immediately discredited.

Sign the petition to the Senate now: don’t listen to the extremist U.S. Chamber of Commerce on any issue.

And Brad Johnson at Think Progress has been painstakingly correcting the Chamber’s falsehoods with rapid-response blog items, as they pop up.

In addition to these newer campaigns, some small businesses have dealt with the U.S. Chamber’s extremism in more creative ways. The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce offers an alternative for small businesses that want to be part of a business association but don’t agree with the U.S. Chamber’s anti-consumer policies. They have been fighting against coal plants and for federal climate legislation for years, and they applauded Senator Graham just yesterday for his newfound urgency to reach a bipartisan deal on climate change.

Frank Knapp, President of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber told me on Monday that the U.S. Chamber does not represent the best interests of most small businesses. “I co-founded The S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce because I didn’t believe that small business interests were being represented, specifically in South Carolina, by any other chamber,” Knapp said. “It is clear that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is driven, as most organizations are, by their largest contributors. That traditionally leaves small business interests not being considered.”  Business Week asked a similar question last week.

James Surowiecki explored what may be behind this in next week’s New Yorker:

In any large group, a few people do most of the work—usually those who are most ideologically committed or who have a direct stake in a particular outcome. So decisions often end up reflecting not the wishes of the group as a whole but those of its most engaged members. In the case of climate-change legislation like cap-and-trade, many of the companies on the Chamber’s board of directors actually support it. But among the few that publicly oppose it are coal companies, which have a huge stake in stopping any carbon-pricing system. So it’s not surprising that the Chamber’s general approach is closer to Massey Energy’s than to Nike’s.

We assume that lobbies always recognize what’s best for their members. But they don’t, and, in the case of climate change, they may very well be missing what the companies that have resigned in protest have seen: global warming isn’t just bad for the planet; it’s bad for business.

As if the Chamber’s anti-science stance on climate legislation wasn’t enough, they are a key player in other fights against other smart, popular, pro-consumer reforms. Their playbook is exactly the same for every single campaign: spend millions of dollars on misleading television commercials, trying to create fear that reform will destroy the American economy.

Here are a few of the other campaigns they’ve been involved in this year:

The Chamber has lead the fight against the Employee Free Choice Act. They ran millions of dollars worth of misleading ads in home states of key Senators, opposing the legislation. Here is one such ad:

Labor unions responded forcefully — pointing out that the Chamber used the same misleading arguments against the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act 20 years ago — but the damage was done.

On health care they are playing the same disingenuous game they play on climate change. While claiming to support reform, they continue doing everything in their power to protect the status quo. Here is the Chamber’s latest misleading health care ad, thanking Blanche Lincoln for “standing up against a government-run health care plan”:

As Adam Green noted, Blue America is running the antidote

The Chamber has used the same cynical tactics to oppose financial regulatory reform and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. President Obama on Friday specifically called out the Chamber for “maintaining the status quo” at the “expense of American consumers” (emphasis mine):

“But all this hasn’t stopped the big financial firms and their lobbyists from mobilizing against change. They’re doing what they always do – descending on Congress and using every bit of influence they have to maintain a status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers,” he said. “And since they’re worried they may not be able to kill this agency, they’re trying their hardest to weaken it – by asking for exemptions from this agency’s rules and enforcement; by fighting to keep open every gap and loophole they can find. And they’re very good at this, because that’s how business has been done in Washington for a very long time. In fact, over the last ten years, the Chamber of Commerce alone spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying – half a billion dollars.“

So while the bulk of media attention these past few weeks has focused on the Chamber’s stance on climate legislation, there should be no doubt that the group’s efforts are getting in the way of other key elements of the progressive agenda as well.

As Move On notes in their email, the Chamber’s ability to influence members of Congress decreases with each high-profile member company that departs. But the Chamber also relies on annual dues from their nearly 3 million member organizations to finance their misleading political campaigns. Small and large businesses nationwide should take a long hard look at the Chamber’s campaigns and track record, and those who don’t feel represented should end their memberships immediately. Those companies on the Chamber’s board of directors should be subject to additional pressure, since they contribute so heavily to the Chamber’s coffers for the pleasure.

Put another way, companies should only be members of the Chamber of Commerce if they support hyper-conservative anti-regulatory policies across the board, and aren’t afraid to show it.  I suspect that hundreds of forward-thinking companies will jump ship in the next several months before their reputations are tarnished by association.

Green Inc: (via NRDC)

Apple has become the latest company to resign from the United States Chamber of Commerce over climate policy.

“We strongly object to the chamber’s recent comments opposing the E.P.A.’s effort to limit greenhouse gases,” wrote Catherine A. Novelli, the vice-president of worldwide government affairs at Apple, in a letter dated today and addressed to Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the chamber.

Here is Apple’s Letter to the Chamber of Commerce:

apple-chamber –

Blue Green Alliance:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 30, 2009) With today’s introduction of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the Blue Green Alliance released the following statement:

David Foster, Executive Director of the Blue Green Alliance:

“The Blue Green Alliance commends Senators Boxer and Kerry for introducing comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation. To truly achieve our goals of a cleaner environment and a prosperous and fair clean energy economy, we must pass comprehensive legislation that protects workers and ignites our clean energy economy. The Copenhagen negotiations are just around the corner, and it is critical that the U.S. Senate move on this legislation to send a strong message to the world.”

Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers:

“We are in the midst of a long, tough process, which will require significant leadership from the administration, Congress and the many affected parties. I look forward to working with Senators Boxer and Kerry, and the rest of the U.S. Senate, to craft and pass clean energy legislation.

“To get this right, it is critical that this bill not only tackle the challenges we face in addressing climate change, but also come to the aid of workers across the U.S. by creating and maintaining jobs that strengthen America’s manufacturing base, and prevent the leakage of jobs to nations who fail to take action on climate change.”

Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club:

“The Sierra Club applauds the introduction of this bill because it’s time for America to again take charge and make sure that we have more jobs, less pollution and greater security.”

Terence O’Sullivan, General President, Laborers’ International Union of North America:

“The half-million men and women of LIUNA – who work every day to build America – are pleased with the bill’s family-supporting Davis-Bacon provisions, which will help ensure that new jobs are good jobs with fair pay. The bill’s green construction careers provision invests in both workers and jobs of the future and will strengthen communities. As we move forward, LIUNA looks forward to working with the Senate to ensure that sufficient investment is also made in building weatherization, which can create good jobs, save families money and help free us from foreign oil.”

Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council:

“This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. And it will put Americans back to work, making our country the world leader in the clean energy technologies that are driving growth in the global marketplace.”

Larry Cohen, President, Communications Workers of America:

“Taking action on the issues of climate change and energy policy is critical for our country. Our goal must be to build a new energy workforce and workplace for the future, one that combines quality jobs with securing America’s place as a leader in energy innovation and manufacturing.  I look forward to working with Senators Boxer and Kerry as we move forward on an energy policy that will also create quality jobs for American workers.”

Andy Stern, President, Service Employees International Union:

“Senators Boxer and Kerry have put forth a bill that not only brings America closer to establishing itself as a leader in the clean energy economy, but ensures that American workers are an integral part of the solution.  I look forward to working with Senators Boxer and Kerry to ensure that sufficient investments are made in job training and creation as we work through this process.”

Mike Langford, National President, Utility Workers Union of America:

“Those working to supply Americans with their electricity have so much to gain from clean energy legislation, and so much to lose from inaction. Working with Senators Boxer and Kerry, we can ensure that comprehensive clean energy legislation transitions our economy to provide the investments needed to grow a long-lasting clean energy sector that will provide high-quality jobs for years to come.”

###

The Blue Green Alliance is a national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs in the clean energy economy. The Blue Green Alliance unites more than eight million people in pursuit of good jobs, a clean environment and a green economy.

David Doniger at NRDC:

In a landmark ruling, the federal court of appeals in New York ruled today in favor of states and private land trusts that had sued America’s largest global warming polluters to curb their emissions.

The case is called State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., and the long-awaited ruling was issued today by a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court ruled that five large electric power companies can be sued in federal court because the 650 million tons of carbon dioxide they emit each year are contributing to rising temperatures and a host of damaging impacts in other states, including heat waves, smog episodes, droughts and forest fires. The case was brought by the attorneys general of eight states and one city (CT, NY, CA, IA, NJ, RI, VT, WI and NYC) and by two private land trusts. The case will now go back to the federal district court in New York City for trial.

05-5104-cv_opn –

Brad Johnson explains:

According to Declan McCullagh, a libertarian blogger who works for CBS Interactive, secret Obama administration documents reveal that the cost of clean energy cap-and-trade legislation would be $1,761 per household — despite official estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Energy Information Administration of about a postage stamp a day. Based on Treasury Department documents acquired by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), McCullagh claims that “a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent“.

There are lots of other updates on this story in the Wonk Room piece. Please read the whole thing.

The CBS piece, which can be found here, was later updated with this statement from the Environmental Defense Fund:

Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it’s not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable — and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

Clean Energy Works responded to the highly flawed CBS piece with this document:

CBS Piece Response –

Politico’s Ben Smith was also forced to correct his misleading piece on this:

CORRECTION: The League of Conservation Voters’ Navin Nayak points out to me that the documents are a bit less than meets the eye: They refer to a version of the legislation profoundly different than the one that passed. Specifically, the original White House plan had 100% of emissions permits being distributed by auction; the plan that passed has just 15%. “Can you say ‘irrelevant analysis’? It would be like pricing the health care bills currently in front of Congress based on a single-payer system,” he writes.

Assistant Treasury Secretary Alan Krueger has now weighed in:

“The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong. Treasury’s analysis is consistent with public analyses by the EIA, EPA, and CBO, and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals. It is time for an honest debate about how to solve a long-term challenge and deliver comprehensive energy reform – not for misrepresentations of the facts.”

More excellent pushback on this from Media Matters, Bill Scher at Blog for Our Future and Pete Altman at NRDC.

Finally, here is the out-of-date FOIA document the original flawed reporting from CBS and Politico was based on:

FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11 –

Update: Kate Sheppard at The Washington Independent catches Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) repeating this lie to the Washington Post.

Turns out, Duke Energy was not the first company to leave the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Pete Altman at NRDC Switchboard makes a great catch:

We noticed that when ACCCE rolled out in April 2008, Alcoa was listed as a major member.Now, Alcoa is nowhere to be found on the ACCCE Web site.

Following up, I sent the following set of questions to an Alcoa communications staffer:

Is Alcoa still a member of the American Coalition for Clean for Electricity?

If not:

- When did you end your membership?
- Did you release a statement?
- Why did you end your membership?

Although, they didn’t respond to the last question, here is Alcoa’s response (via email):

We are no longer a member. We did not issue any statements at the time (a few months ago). We also didn’t announce when we joined.

In addition to Alcoa, three other companies that were originally members (PDF) of ACCCE are no longer listed on the website.

• Express Marine
• FirstEnergy
• Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

I have already heard back from FirstEnergy, which is also no longer a member of ACCCE (via email):

FirstEnergy is not a member of ACCCE. As part of our reorganization in March of 2009 to conserve assets, we cancelled our memberships in several utility coalitions, including ACCCE. No public statement was issued as a result of these membership cancellations.

I am currently seeking verification of the membership status of both Express Marine and the Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.

A burst of developments Monday considerably raised the profile of the latest attempt by polluting industries to thwart environmental legislation. This story has been moving quickly, so here is a quick timeline of how things have unfolded over the past few days. If I missed anything major, please let me know:

Friday

• The Charlottesville Daily Progress reported on a series of forged letters from community organizations, fraudulently sent by lobbyists to Congressman Tom Perriello of Virginia. The letters, written in opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, failed to dissuade Congressman Perriello, who voted for the legislation.
• Representative Ed Markey immediately announced his plans to launch an investigation, calling the letters an “appalling abuse.”
• Senator John Kerry posted a rapid response diary on Daily Kos.
• The lobbying firm responsible for sending the letters, Bonner and Associates, blamed the incident on a temporary employee and tried to downplay the situation.
• Think Progress outlined Bonner and Associates’ long history of shady tactics.
• Avaaz.org took to K Street in protest of the naked fraud.

Over the weekend, more traditional outlets took notice, with stories from NYT, WaPO, WSJ, Politico and AP.

Monday

• Sierra Club announced a major beltway ad buy, and fired off a letter to Attorney General Holder urging investigations.
• Move On launched a position asking the DOJ to conduct “an investigation into whether the firm, Bonner & Associates, committed fraud, and how often they’ve done this.”
• Credo Mobile sent an email to their list petitioning A.G. Holder to “investigate and prosecute” dirty coal’s fraudulent tactics.”
• The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a front group for the coal industry, was exposed as the client Bonner and Associates sent the letters for.
• ACCCE released a statement, feigning ‘outrage’ and the ‘deception’. A. Siegel is outraged too.
• Sierra Club continued ratcheting up the pressure, again urging the DOJ to act.
• Pete Altman at NRDC reminded us of the difficulty ACCCE had getting all of their lobbying expenditures right last quarter.
• Representative Markey sent a harshly worded letter to Jack Bonner with 14 poignant questions. TPM notes that Markey’s Subcommittee has subpoena powers.

An ACCCE-produced Bonner and Associates Background Document, obtained late Monday by EnviroKnow, sheds additional new light on the extent of the fraud (emphasis mine):

Due to reported misconduct by a Bonner and Associates employee (who the firm states was subsequently fired), it appears that a total of twelve falsified letters were sent by that firm to the offices of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, Congressman Christopher Carney and Congressman Tom Perriello.

Six forged letters, all sent to Congressman Perriello, had been acknowledged previously. While Congressman Perriello remained unswayed by the letters, and voted in support of the legislation, Reps. Dahlkemper and Carney both did not. This raises the very real possibility that Members of Congress were influenced by fraudulent letters paid for by the coal industry, and voted against environmental regulation as a result of this influence. Given the razor thin margin and last-minute negotiations surrounding the House vote, this was a clear attempt by both Bonner and Associates and ACCCE to subvert the Democratic process. Now, we can’t say for with 100% certainty that fraudulent letters persuaded any particular Member of Congress to oppose the legislation, but that was certainly the intent. To make matters worse, the background document includes ACCCE’s less-than-inspiring “belief” that the fraudulent letters were limited to the three congressional districts mentioned previously:

Due to assurances that Bonner and Associates provided to Hawthorn, and Hawthorn subsequently communicated to ACCCE, we believe this matter to be limited to the three congressional districts mentioned above. However, we are in the process of verifying all contacts made by Bonner and Associates with respect to this project.

The folks who lied their way into this mess are not going to get to the bottom of it on their own. Chairman Markey has generously given Mr. Bonner nine days to respond to his questions. The Department of Justice should move forward in the meantime with separate investigations.

From NRDC.

Testing the Waters –