

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.
An establishment environmental group is under fire for its recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, which environmentalists and Bernie Sanders supporters say contradicts the organization's own rubric for grading candidates' political records.
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) on Monday threw its full weight behind Clinton, marking the organization's earliest endorsement of a presidential candidate. During an appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, LCV Action Fund president Gene Karpinski touted Clinton's "long history of strong environmental leadership," saying she is "without a doubt the most effective leader to stand up to Big Polluters and push forward an aggressive plan to tackle climate change."
This strong statement of support comes despite the fact that the organization--which charges itself with electing "pro-environment candidates"--had essentially given Clinton a lifetime score (pdf) of 82 out of 100 for her environmental voting record, leading the Sanders campaign to cry foul.
"Bernie's record on the environment is unbeatable," said Sanders' spokesperson Michael Briggs. "He has a 95 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters." Sanders has already won a number of significant environmental endorsements, including from fellow Vermonter and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben as well as Friends of the Earth.
In contrast, Briggs observed that the League only "agreed with former Sen. Clinton 82 percent of the time," adding that the endorsement is likely "based on something other than the merits."
National Journal reporter Ben Geman notes that LCV has close ties to the Democratic establishment. "It's board chairwoman, Carol Browner, formerly served as a top climate-change official in President Obama's White House and ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton," Geman writes. Also, Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta is a former LCV board member.
Other environmentalists were equally quick to criticize the decision in light of Clinton's environmental record.
Blogger Brad Johnson tweeted that the group had chosen to back the Democratic candidate "with the weakest climate agenda," pointing to her historic support of fracking as well as the millions Big Oil has donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Similarly, the former Secretary of State's opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline came years after Sanders came out against the project--following a trend of Clinton following his lead on a number of progressive issues.
The endorsement is not insignificant. The group is now preparing to launch a program to mobilize members in early primary states to volunteer for the Clinton campaign. Further, according to the group, LCV ponied up $15 million in the 2012 elections and $30 million in the 2014 cycle.
In a statement defending the group's decision, LCV vice president for communications, David Willett, suggested that the endorsement came down to the question of perceived electability.
"We are enthusiastically endorsing her because she's a proven leader," Willett said, "and we are confident she is the best candidate to both beat her eventual climate denier opponent in the general and then hit the ground running on day one as president."
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 |
An establishment environmental group is under fire for its recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, which environmentalists and Bernie Sanders supporters say contradicts the organization's own rubric for grading candidates' political records.
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) on Monday threw its full weight behind Clinton, marking the organization's earliest endorsement of a presidential candidate. During an appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, LCV Action Fund president Gene Karpinski touted Clinton's "long history of strong environmental leadership," saying she is "without a doubt the most effective leader to stand up to Big Polluters and push forward an aggressive plan to tackle climate change."
This strong statement of support comes despite the fact that the organization--which charges itself with electing "pro-environment candidates"--had essentially given Clinton a lifetime score (pdf) of 82 out of 100 for her environmental voting record, leading the Sanders campaign to cry foul.
"Bernie's record on the environment is unbeatable," said Sanders' spokesperson Michael Briggs. "He has a 95 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters." Sanders has already won a number of significant environmental endorsements, including from fellow Vermonter and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben as well as Friends of the Earth.
In contrast, Briggs observed that the League only "agreed with former Sen. Clinton 82 percent of the time," adding that the endorsement is likely "based on something other than the merits."
National Journal reporter Ben Geman notes that LCV has close ties to the Democratic establishment. "It's board chairwoman, Carol Browner, formerly served as a top climate-change official in President Obama's White House and ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton," Geman writes. Also, Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta is a former LCV board member.
Other environmentalists were equally quick to criticize the decision in light of Clinton's environmental record.
Blogger Brad Johnson tweeted that the group had chosen to back the Democratic candidate "with the weakest climate agenda," pointing to her historic support of fracking as well as the millions Big Oil has donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Similarly, the former Secretary of State's opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline came years after Sanders came out against the project--following a trend of Clinton following his lead on a number of progressive issues.
The endorsement is not insignificant. The group is now preparing to launch a program to mobilize members in early primary states to volunteer for the Clinton campaign. Further, according to the group, LCV ponied up $15 million in the 2012 elections and $30 million in the 2014 cycle.
In a statement defending the group's decision, LCV vice president for communications, David Willett, suggested that the endorsement came down to the question of perceived electability.
"We are enthusiastically endorsing her because she's a proven leader," Willett said, "and we are confident she is the best candidate to both beat her eventual climate denier opponent in the general and then hit the ground running on day one as president."
An establishment environmental group is under fire for its recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, which environmentalists and Bernie Sanders supporters say contradicts the organization's own rubric for grading candidates' political records.
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) on Monday threw its full weight behind Clinton, marking the organization's earliest endorsement of a presidential candidate. During an appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, LCV Action Fund president Gene Karpinski touted Clinton's "long history of strong environmental leadership," saying she is "without a doubt the most effective leader to stand up to Big Polluters and push forward an aggressive plan to tackle climate change."
This strong statement of support comes despite the fact that the organization--which charges itself with electing "pro-environment candidates"--had essentially given Clinton a lifetime score (pdf) of 82 out of 100 for her environmental voting record, leading the Sanders campaign to cry foul.
"Bernie's record on the environment is unbeatable," said Sanders' spokesperson Michael Briggs. "He has a 95 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters." Sanders has already won a number of significant environmental endorsements, including from fellow Vermonter and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben as well as Friends of the Earth.
In contrast, Briggs observed that the League only "agreed with former Sen. Clinton 82 percent of the time," adding that the endorsement is likely "based on something other than the merits."
National Journal reporter Ben Geman notes that LCV has close ties to the Democratic establishment. "It's board chairwoman, Carol Browner, formerly served as a top climate-change official in President Obama's White House and ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton," Geman writes. Also, Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta is a former LCV board member.
Other environmentalists were equally quick to criticize the decision in light of Clinton's environmental record.
Blogger Brad Johnson tweeted that the group had chosen to back the Democratic candidate "with the weakest climate agenda," pointing to her historic support of fracking as well as the millions Big Oil has donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Similarly, the former Secretary of State's opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline came years after Sanders came out against the project--following a trend of Clinton following his lead on a number of progressive issues.
The endorsement is not insignificant. The group is now preparing to launch a program to mobilize members in early primary states to volunteer for the Clinton campaign. Further, according to the group, LCV ponied up $15 million in the 2012 elections and $30 million in the 2014 cycle.
In a statement defending the group's decision, LCV vice president for communications, David Willett, suggested that the endorsement came down to the question of perceived electability.
"We are enthusiastically endorsing her because she's a proven leader," Willett said, "and we are confident she is the best candidate to both beat her eventual climate denier opponent in the general and then hit the ground running on day one as president."