

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Progressive groups have a challenge for presidential hopefuls: Put your money where your mouth is on the climate, and swear off contributions from fossil fuel companies.
To affirm their commitment to taking on the climate crisis and "standing up to the corrupting influence of fossil-fuel companies," the campaign, launched on Monday by The Nation and 350 Action, is calling on 2016 presidential and congressional candidates to sign a pledge committing to "neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions from any oil, gas, or coal company."
The Nation editors said they have asked each of the major declared presidential candidates in the the Democratic, Republican, and Green parties if they would be willing to honor the pledge.
Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, as well as Green candidate Jill Stein, have agreed to do so. Democratic candidate Lincoln Chafee said he supported strong climate action but would not sign the pledge.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, along with the 14 Republican candidates contacted--13 of which deny mankind's influence on climate change--did not reply.
As Grist reporter John Light noted, the challenge puts increasing pressure on Clinton, whose failure to respond does not match up with her rhetoric on the climate crisis.
" Climate change is an issue she'll have to engage with continually through the election cycle," Light writes, "and oil and coal companies' objectives are, presumably, at odds with those of a candidate who has called for 'decisive' action to 'head off the most catastrophic consequences' of climate change."
Like the 1990's, when politicians were pressured to deny contributions from Big Tobacco, the pledge seeks to minimize the influence of the fossil fuel industry on politics.
"The carbon barons employ their vast wealth and the political and media influence it buys to maintain the status quo, confusing the public with disinformation and cajoling or intimidating the people's elected representatives into refusing a safer course," The Nation writes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012, the oil and gas industry contributed at least $76 million to presidential and congressional candidates; the coal industry spent an additional $15 million.
Meanwhile, the 2016 campaign is expected to attract unprecedented amounts of outside money.
The pledge pivots off the growing success of the Fossil Fuel Divestment campaign, which has seen scores of governments, universities, companies, and pension funds around the world committing to pull their funds from oil, gas and coal companies.
"Voters deserve to know whether our candidates will do what the science demands: keep the majority of US coal, oil, and gas reserves underground," the Nation writes. "And if we're going to trust politician's assurances, we need to know that they're not taking campaign contributions from the very industry that's driving this crisis."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Progressive groups have a challenge for presidential hopefuls: Put your money where your mouth is on the climate, and swear off contributions from fossil fuel companies.
To affirm their commitment to taking on the climate crisis and "standing up to the corrupting influence of fossil-fuel companies," the campaign, launched on Monday by The Nation and 350 Action, is calling on 2016 presidential and congressional candidates to sign a pledge committing to "neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions from any oil, gas, or coal company."
The Nation editors said they have asked each of the major declared presidential candidates in the the Democratic, Republican, and Green parties if they would be willing to honor the pledge.
Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, as well as Green candidate Jill Stein, have agreed to do so. Democratic candidate Lincoln Chafee said he supported strong climate action but would not sign the pledge.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, along with the 14 Republican candidates contacted--13 of which deny mankind's influence on climate change--did not reply.
As Grist reporter John Light noted, the challenge puts increasing pressure on Clinton, whose failure to respond does not match up with her rhetoric on the climate crisis.
" Climate change is an issue she'll have to engage with continually through the election cycle," Light writes, "and oil and coal companies' objectives are, presumably, at odds with those of a candidate who has called for 'decisive' action to 'head off the most catastrophic consequences' of climate change."
Like the 1990's, when politicians were pressured to deny contributions from Big Tobacco, the pledge seeks to minimize the influence of the fossil fuel industry on politics.
"The carbon barons employ their vast wealth and the political and media influence it buys to maintain the status quo, confusing the public with disinformation and cajoling or intimidating the people's elected representatives into refusing a safer course," The Nation writes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012, the oil and gas industry contributed at least $76 million to presidential and congressional candidates; the coal industry spent an additional $15 million.
Meanwhile, the 2016 campaign is expected to attract unprecedented amounts of outside money.
The pledge pivots off the growing success of the Fossil Fuel Divestment campaign, which has seen scores of governments, universities, companies, and pension funds around the world committing to pull their funds from oil, gas and coal companies.
"Voters deserve to know whether our candidates will do what the science demands: keep the majority of US coal, oil, and gas reserves underground," the Nation writes. "And if we're going to trust politician's assurances, we need to know that they're not taking campaign contributions from the very industry that's driving this crisis."
Progressive groups have a challenge for presidential hopefuls: Put your money where your mouth is on the climate, and swear off contributions from fossil fuel companies.
To affirm their commitment to taking on the climate crisis and "standing up to the corrupting influence of fossil-fuel companies," the campaign, launched on Monday by The Nation and 350 Action, is calling on 2016 presidential and congressional candidates to sign a pledge committing to "neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions from any oil, gas, or coal company."
The Nation editors said they have asked each of the major declared presidential candidates in the the Democratic, Republican, and Green parties if they would be willing to honor the pledge.
Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, as well as Green candidate Jill Stein, have agreed to do so. Democratic candidate Lincoln Chafee said he supported strong climate action but would not sign the pledge.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, along with the 14 Republican candidates contacted--13 of which deny mankind's influence on climate change--did not reply.
As Grist reporter John Light noted, the challenge puts increasing pressure on Clinton, whose failure to respond does not match up with her rhetoric on the climate crisis.
" Climate change is an issue she'll have to engage with continually through the election cycle," Light writes, "and oil and coal companies' objectives are, presumably, at odds with those of a candidate who has called for 'decisive' action to 'head off the most catastrophic consequences' of climate change."
Like the 1990's, when politicians were pressured to deny contributions from Big Tobacco, the pledge seeks to minimize the influence of the fossil fuel industry on politics.
"The carbon barons employ their vast wealth and the political and media influence it buys to maintain the status quo, confusing the public with disinformation and cajoling or intimidating the people's elected representatives into refusing a safer course," The Nation writes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012, the oil and gas industry contributed at least $76 million to presidential and congressional candidates; the coal industry spent an additional $15 million.
Meanwhile, the 2016 campaign is expected to attract unprecedented amounts of outside money.
The pledge pivots off the growing success of the Fossil Fuel Divestment campaign, which has seen scores of governments, universities, companies, and pension funds around the world committing to pull their funds from oil, gas and coal companies.
"Voters deserve to know whether our candidates will do what the science demands: keep the majority of US coal, oil, and gas reserves underground," the Nation writes. "And if we're going to trust politician's assurances, we need to know that they're not taking campaign contributions from the very industry that's driving this crisis."