5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 13 2011, 01:58pm EDT
Contact:
Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-2500, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org
Advocacy Group Asks Governor Cuomo to Disclose Girlfriend's Oil Industry Connections, Releases Ad Campaign Asking Governor to Ban Fracking
A week and a half after New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation recommended opening up 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale in New York to gas fracking, the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch today asked New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to disclose his live-in girlfriend's connections to the oil and gas industry.
WASHINGTON
A week and a half after New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation recommended opening up 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale in New York to gas fracking, the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch today asked New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to disclose his live-in girlfriend's connections to the oil and gas industry. The group is also launching a five-figure advocacy ad buy targeting the governor that will run in the Buffalo, Albany, Rochester and Syracuse media markets starting this week asking him to protect public health and environmental resources by banning fracking in New York.
In an open letter sent to the Governor's Office today, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter cites a recent Wall Street Journal article noting that Governor Cuomo's girlfriend, Sandra Lee, recently spoke at a "conference of petroleum executives" in March, but her representatives have declined to identify the group. Since they are unmarried, Ms. Lee is not obligated under law to disclose the sources of her income from speaking engagements.
"We believe it's time the Cuomo administration take steps to ensure transparency in regard to its dealings with this industry, especially since the entire nation is watching to see what New York state will do regarding natural gas fracking," wrote Hauter.
Also troubling is that the source of the Wall Street Journal article, a blog by Star Talent Inc., was originally posted in late March and apparently removed and re-posted, changing the word "petroleum" to "corporate" executives. "One might wonder: Did the scrutiny brought to bear on Ms. Lee from the Wall Street Journal article prompt her representation to attempt to obscure the dealings with the petroleum industry regarding the event?" wrote Hauter.
Since the identity of the group has not been disclosed, Hauter writes, "We are only left to speculate on that question." The National Fuel Gas Company convened its annual shareholders meeting at the Ritz Carlton in Naples, Fla. on March 10, 2011, the same hotel as Ms. Lee's appearance there that month. The company sells and transports natural gas through Western New York and Pennsylvania. One day earlier, the company's subsidiary, Seneca Resources, divested itself of its Gulf of Mexico oil and gas assets in favor of developing properties in the Marcellus Shale.
"One might also wonder why a 'conference of petroleum executives' would have interest in a Food Network personality," wrote Hauter. "The question of whether or not a greater motive is at play will hang over your head until Ms. Lee discloses, openly and transparently, the sources of her income from such speaking appearances."
Hauter is also testifying today at the public meeting of the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board, which has been tasked with making recommendations about how to improve the safety of shale gas development. There she will express her concern about the lack of non-industry input from communities and academics alarmed by the public health, environmental and socio-economic effects of shale gas drilling. She will also reiterate that the entire nation is watching New York on the issue, and that it's critical that Governor Cuomo address transparency problems - including disclosing his girlfriend's industry ties.
"Your leadership in New York reverberates throughout the nation. As a powerful state, federal agencies and affected communities around the country are watching what unfolds there regarding fracking regulations. You are also a prominent leader with known ambitions beyond the state. That is why we urge you to address these transparency problems, starting with disclosing the sources of Sandra Lee's petroleum industry income," wrote Hauter in the open letter.
Food & Water Watch and 48 other groups have asked for a statewide ban on fracking in New York.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
After Dropping 'Made-Up' Allegation Against Maduro, DOJ Now Reportedly Probing Colombia's Petro
"This is what they did before they abducted Maduro," said one observer.
Mar 20, 2026
The US Department of Justice has reportedly launched multiple drug trafficking investigations into Colombian President Gustavo Petro—a leftist and staunch critic of President Donald Trump—just over two months after dropping a key yet fictitious allegation against Venezuela's kidnapped leader.
"Three people with knowledge of the matter" told The New York Times on Friday that the US Attorney's offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations in concert with "prosecutors who focus on international narcotics trafficking," the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Investigators are reportedly probing whether Petro met with any drug traffickers or if his presidential campaign solicited donations from them. The sources told the Times that the probes are in their early states and it is unclear whether any criminal charges would be filed.
The Times noted that "there was nothing to indicate that the White House had a role in initiating either investigation."
However, Trump has shown exceptional zeal for weaponizing the government to target his political foes and has repeatedly accused Petro—who has been a vocal critic of US imperialism, high-seas boat bombings, and support for Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—of being a drug trafficker.
Trump has offered no evidence to support his allegations against Petro. The US, on the other hand, has a centuries-long history of involvement in drug trafficking, from China to Southeast Asia to Central America—and Colombia, where the CIA allegedly worked with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a far-right paramilitary group founded by drug lords to combat leftist insurgents during the country's decadeslong civil war.
As a sitting head of state, Petro has immunity from US jurisdiction while in office. But that did not stop Trump from bombing and invading Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The DOJ charged Venezuela's president with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
The DOJ has quietly dropped its "made-up" allegation against Maduro—that he was the kingpin of the "Cartel de los Soles"—after learning that the name is a slang phrase and not an actual criminal group.
After kidnapping Maduro, Trump told Petro to "watch his ass."
Last October, the US Treasury Department sanctioned Petro and his wife, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying at the time that Colombia's leader "has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity."
This, after the US State Department revoked Petro's visa after he used his September 2025 United Nations General Assembly address to accuse Trump of complicity in the Gaza genocide and urged the UN to open a criminal case against the US leader for his extrajudicial bombing of boats allegedly transporting drugs from South America to the United States. Petro also implored US troops to "not point your rifles against humanity."
Some observers say Trump may try to leverage the probe of Petro to pressure him into greater cooperation with the failed but ongoing 55-year War on Drugs. Colombia is the world's leading cocaine producer whose previous right-wing governments were staunch US allies during and after the Cold War.
According to the Times:
At the same time, Colombian news outlets have reported that people linked to traffickers have tried to channel funds to Mr. Petro, including through his son. His son admitted that illicit money entered his father’s 2022 election campaign, Colombian prosecutors said, but they have not brought criminal charges against Mr. Petro himself. He has denied wrongdoing, describing the accusations as politically motivated.
Others speculate that Trump may be trying to put his finger on the scale of Colombia's May 31 election. As Colombia's Constitution limits presidents to a single term, Petro has urged his supporters to vote for leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda. Trump has forged close ties with right-wing governments across Latin America, recently hosting his Shield of the America's summit in Miami and meddling in elections from Honduras to Chile to Argentina.
Relations between Trump and Petro seemed to have been improving. When Petro visited the White House last month for his first face-to-face meeting with Trump, many observers braced themselves for fireworks. However, Trump emerged from the meeting calling it "terrific." He even signed a copy of his ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal, for Petro, writing, "You are great" on the title page.
Petro, in turn, posted a photo Trump gifted him of the two men shaking hands, and a handwritten message saying, "Gustavo: A great honor—I love Colombia."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump AI Framework Would Deliver 'Big Tech's Top Policy Priority': A Ban on State Regulations
"Written by Big Tech, for Big Tech," said Rep. Yvette Clarke of the Trump administration proposal.
Mar 20, 2026
The Trump administration on Friday released its national policy framework for regulating artificial intelligence, and critics said it gave Silicon Valley a massive gift by coming out in favor of barring state regulation of the technology.
Specifically, Big Tech critics pointed to the framework's recommendation that the federal government preempt state laws regulating AI that could otherwise "act contrary to the United States’ national strategy to achieve global AI dominance."
"States should not be permitted to regulate AI development," the framework stated, "because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications."
The Trump administration's paper also argued that states "should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI" and "should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, slammed the AI policy framework, which he said appeared designed "to protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans."
"Trump’s AI framework is a hollow document with only one tough and meaningfully binding provision, delivering Big Tech’s top policy priority: It aims to preempt all state laws and rules dealing with AI," said Weissman. "Preemption would effectively mean no US regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place—and this framework would impose no additional standards of consequence."
Weissman added that while states' actions to regulate AI are inadequate, they are at least "trying to meet the novel and enormous challenges of the moment," which "is exactly why Big Tech wants to shut down their efforts."
Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, called the White House's preemption of state AI laws a mistake, predicting that it would lead to even worse problems than the ones created by unregulated social media over the past two decades.
"I think it's like this: if you think the current state of play in social media guardrails are A-OK, then you'll be fine with the framework," he wrote. "If—like most—you believe we made catastrophic mistakes re social media, then you should fervently oppose this vacuous 'framework.'"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) singled out the proposed ban on state AI regulations as a particularly troubling aspect of the framework.
"The White House National AI Policy Framework reinforces the Trump administration’s commitment to preempting state-level AI laws without the establishment of clear, enforceable federal guardrails to address the urgent risks posed by AI systems," he wrote. "It even seeks to limit congressional regulatory action. But until federal action ensures safe and responsible AI development, deployment, and use, states must retain the ability to implement policies to protect the American public."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, argued that the Trump AI framework should be one of the first things a future Democratic president throws in the garbage after taking office.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) delivered a pithy analysis of the White House framework, describing it as being "written by Big Tech, for Big Tech."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Millions of Americans Joining the Ranks of the Uninsured Thanks to Trump-GOP Cuts in 2025
New data released by KFF underscores how "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course remains an urgent prerogative for the nation," said one physician and advocate.
Mar 20, 2026
About 24.3 million Americans were enrolled in healthcare plans within the Affordable Care Act marketplace last year, but a survey released Thursday by KFF found that about 1 in 10 of those people had no choice but to make a difficult and risky calculation at the end of 2025 when ACA subsidies expired due to Republicans' refusal to support an extension.
According to the research, 9% of people enrolled in plans under the marketplace last year are now uninsured, having dropped their coverage—and costs were a deciding factor for the vast majority of those who left the marketplace.
The expiration of the enhanced tax credits sent premiums skyrocketing by an average of 114%, according to KFF.
The decision was unavoidable for one 54-year-old man in Texas, who told KFF simply, "Without the subsidy, I cannot afford the premium payments.”
A 56-year-old woman in Illinois said her income was too high last year to qualify for subsidies, but the increase in cost this year was "so high even for those without subsidies."
"I simply cannot afford to pay $1,200 a month for insurance," she said. "It used to be high premiums meant low deductibles and copays, but not anymore. This is ridiculous. $1,200 for a healthy person, and an $8,000 deductible. Really?”
A Florida resident named Kelly Rose told The Wall Street Journal that the $1,700 monthly premium she was quoted for an ACA plan would have been more than her mortgage. She missed the enrollment window for health coverage through her job at a bank—assuming her ACA plan would cost less—and is now uninsured and relying on a Canadian pharmacy to get her asthma medication, which would cost $800 per month without insurance in the US.
Cynthia Cox, a senior vice president at KFF, told the Journal that the survey results were “about on target” what the health policy research group had expected last year when the subsidy expiration was looming and Democrats were demanding that the GOP vote with them to extend the tax credits.
“Not only is there significant coverage loss, but there could be more to come,” Cox said.
An estimated 25 million Americans are uninsured, said Harvard Medical School professor and former Physicians for a National Health Plan president Adam Gaffney—a fact he called "abhorrent" as he suggested the new data makes the latest case for "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course," or an expansion of the Medicare program to the entire US population.
That proposal, which has been introduced in Congress numerous times by lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), would put the US in line with the healthcare systems of other wealthy nations, improve healthcare outcomes, and save an estimated $650 billion per year.
A poll released late last year by Data for Progress found that 65% of likely US voters supported "creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called ‘Medicare for All,’ that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans."
The fact that millions of Americans have chosen to opt out of the country's for-profit health insurance system—putting their health and finances at risk—is representative of "a profound hollowing-out and weakening of America," said writer and markets researcher Ben Hunt.
The economic justice campaign Unrig Our Economy emphasized that Republicans' cuts to healthcare last year—via the expiration of the subsidies and slashes to Medicaid—put an estimated 15 million Americans at risk of losing health coverage.
“Republicans knew that healthcare tax credits were critical to helping millions of Americans afford their health insurance, but they chose to get rid of them to fund more tax breaks for their billionaire buddies,” said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. “Costs are higher, millions are without insurance, and working Americans are having to make sacrifices just to afford basic healthcare—and they know that Republicans are to blame. It’s time Republicans finally started listening to their constituents and fixing the healthcare crisis they created.”
KFF's polling also found that among people who still have health insurance under the ACA, higher premiums and deductibles have left a majority concerned that they wouldn't be able to afford emergency care even with their coverage. Nearly half of respondents said they were worried that even routine medical care will be unaffordable this year with their ACA plans.
Due to Republican attacks, the cost of coverage offered by the program is now forcing 55% of people using the ACA to cut back on spending money on food, household items, and clothing in order to afford it. Forty-three percent said they are trying to find another job or extra income to afford healthcare payments, and nearly a quarter said they are skipping or delaying payments on other bills to afford their health coverage.
More than half of people polled by KFF said they blame Republicans in Congress for their rising healthcare costs.
"Americans are blaming them because it’s true," said Unrig Our Economy. "Congressional Republicans’ massive cuts to health care have put a projected 15 million Americans at risk of losing health insurance and left millions more struggling to keep up with rising costs. Republicans made these cuts all so they could give more tax breaks to billionaires and corporations."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular