

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.

Corporate Accountability International is a non-profit membership organization that has, for the last 35 years, successfully advanced campaigns protecting health, the environment and human rights. We are here today for a campaign that requires no candidates, debates, or stump speeches to achieve its object, only the commitment of the state to Vote the Tap and Kick the Bottles out.
For decades bottled water marketing has eroded public confidence in the tap, working to convince us that water should treated as a commodity. The result? By 2003, one in five people were drinking exclusively bottled water citing quality concerns as their main reason for doing so. We've forgotten that there are simple, cost effective alternatives to bottled water that can and should be implemented; such as, using reusable glasses and pitchers at meetings.
With this trend towards bottled water, the political will to adequately fund public water systems has waned. Today, bottling giants like Nestle stake their long-term growth on the continued decline of public water infrastructure and their ability to disparage it (with campaigns like "Born Better"). But states don't have to feed this vicious cycle any longer.
With me today are Mayor Jean Quan from the city of Oakland, Maggie Klein of Oliveto and Jared Hirsch from Sidebar, two popular Oakland restaurants, all of whom have committed to, first, making their cities and establishments a bottled-water free zone and, second, to encourage Governor Brown to do the same and reinvest in the tap. There is a growing bottled water free movement around the state whose home is here in the East Bay. In total, 35 cities across the state and 30 local establishments have signed on to support the Think Outside the Bottle campaign, which aims to promote, protect and ensure public funding for the nation's public water systems. In addition to this 2 universities here in the bay area that are in the process of going bottled-water free. Furthermore, these cities and establishments are asking that the governor issue a policy to cut spending on bottled water at the state level. A series of reports by Corporate Accountability International have shown that states across the country are spending upwards of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars a year on bottled water. Based on a sample audit, we found that some agencies spent approximately $5,000 annually to purchase bottled water for their offices. Considering that there are nearly 300 state agencies in California, the total annual spending figure could top one million dollars. Such spending goes on even as the national investment gap for the tap deepens - it is now $23 billion annually.
And this action is not unprecedented. Already five states have put together policies and plans to phase out unnecessary spending on bottled water and more than 140 cities and 12 universities nationwide have done so as well. As Mayor Jean Quan will tell you, spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water sends the absolute wrong message about the quality of the state's public water and its commitment to preserving the tap for generations to come. This is not to mention how wasteful this spending is at a time when our state can ill afford such an unnecessary expense.
Five governors have already kicked the bottle, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many have also invested in bottled water alternatives, such as reusable water bottles, refurbished water fountains, and bottle-less cooler water stations in their own offices to cut waste and guarantee staff have access to quality tap water. More importantly, these public officials have used their actions as a platform to rebuild public confidence in the tap and reinvest in our most vital public service. And we are asking that Governor Brown lead the charge.
It's time for Governor Brown to take the next critical step in signaling his administration's commitment to the tap. He has already stated his opposition to bottled water and commitment to sustainability: as the Attorney General, Governor Brown warned Nestle that California would challenge Nestle's plan to pump water from the McCloud River because the corporation failed to consider the global warming impacts of producing and transporting millions of gallons of water. Let's ensure that the Governor remains committed to these important values by choosing the tap. Protecting public water and championing investment in public water systems creates well-paying green jobs and preserves our drinking water for generations to come - yielding true sustainability.
To ensure California does not continue to send the mixed messages about the tap, Governor Brown should issue a directive to end all spending on bottled water and reinvest in the tap. The investment will not only be a job creator and an engine for economic growth and renewal, but is necessary for the health and well-being of all California residents and the world around them.
It is now my pleasure to introduce Mayor Jean Quan to talk about why spending money on bottled water sends the wrong message about the quality of our state's drinking water, and how investing in public drinking water is critical to both public health and building a strong economy. She will be followed by Maggie Klein of Oliveto and Mark Drazek from Sidebar, local business leaders who will share why they are proud to serve the tap and invest in the infrastructure of this great city and this great state.
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich said the Mainer is "building a movement around folks who work hard for their family and community."
US Senate hopeful Graham Platner's momentum continues to grow, with yet another senator bucking the Democratic Party establishment to endorse him in Maine's June primary.
"Graham Platner is focused on delivering for Mainers, not billionaire donors,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) on Tuesday in comments reported by Politico. “And he’s exactly the person the Democratic Party needs to win back working people.”
Polls show Platner, the progressive 41-year-old Marine-turned-oyster farmer, comfortably ahead of Maine's centrist Democratic Gov. Janet Mills for the right to challenge the state's five-term Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins in November.
The seat will be an essential pickup if Democrats hope to retake the chamber in 2026.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has pushed for Mills to get the nomination over Platner. This is despite polling last week from Quantus Insights, which showed Mills trailing Collins by over 1%, and Platne leading the Republican by more than 5% among likely voters.
Platner—a backer of Medicare for All and a billionaire wealth tax who has fiercely opposed aggressive US military interventions—first received the backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Earlier this month, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) became the first Democratic senator to endorse Platner, in defiance of party leadership, calling him "the candidate that can win."
Heinrich, who has emphasized the necessity of making the Democratic Party a "bigger tent" and bringing in “new" and "younger" leadership, has admired Platner's candidacy from afar for months.
Responding to Platner's campaign launch video, in which he declared that "the enemy is the oligarchy," Heinrich wrote on social media in October, "We need more candidates like this."
New Mexico's three-term senator is now the third member of the chamber to endorse Platner, who said he was "honored" to have him as a "future colleague."
"He's building a movement around folks who work hard for their family and community—folks who deserve a Senator fighting in their corner," Heinrich said. "I’m proud to endorse and help send him to the Senate in November."
“Pete Hegseth is a very dangerous person. He’s a white Christian nationalist and has the arsenal of the United States government at his disposal."
President Donald Trump's top defense official appeared resolute Tuesday in pushing for continued chaos in the Middle Eastern country—and intensified concerns that the Trump administration is waging a religious "crusade" against Iran by praying at a press briefing.
After telling reporters that Tuesday would "be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bowed his head in prayer and said he was "drawing strength from Psalm 144."
"Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle," said the defense secretary, who has backed Trumps' assertion that the Department of Defense is called the Department of War. "May the Lord grant unyielding strength to our warriors, unbreakable protection to them and our homeland, and total victory over those who seek to harm them."
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recited a prayer for US troops attacking Iran, asking for strength and protection, during a Pentagon briefing.
American and Israeli officials have been criticised for pushing rhetoric suggesting that the campaign against Iran is a religious war. pic.twitter.com/JNZnZZ1yQy
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 10, 2026
Hegseth and Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, made no mention of efforts to return to diplomatic talks, which were reportedly making significant progress toward a deal on Iran's nuclear program late last month when the US and Israel began bombarding Iran—striking civilian infrastructure including schools and healthcare facilities and killing more than 1,300 people so far, according to Iranian officials.
Hegseth said Trump has "maximum options" to conduct the war and said it is up to the president to determine whether “it’s the beginning, the middle, or the end" of the conflict, which has spread to Lebanon and other surrounding countries while the administration's explanation of its objectives in Iran have shifted.
The defense secretary's religious display came a week after the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) said it had received more than 100 reports from noncommissioned officers who said commanding military officers have spoken about the war on Iran as though it's a religious conflict.
The Pentagon has long-established rules prohibiting proselytizing within its ranks, but MRFF president Mikey Weinstein said commanders have appeared "especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be, zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100% accordance with fundamentalist Christian end-of-the-world eschatology.”
Hegseth has prayed at military briefings previously and invited Christian nationalist pastor Doug Wilson to preach at the Pentagon.
On Monday, MS NOW's Ali Velshi posited that without a clear objective or the support of a majority of the American public, observers are left wondering whether the religious displays of Hegseth and military commanders make clear what the goal of attacking Iran is: a religious battle led by Christian nationalists.
"It wasn’t that long ago that groups in parts of the Middle East invoked extremist interpretations of Islam to justify violence against the West... But that religious extremism did not arise in a vacuum. Crucially, it was sustained by a political bargain," wrote Velshi. "Something eerily similar is now unfolding right here at home, and it has been building for some time."
He continued:
More than two centuries after the framers warned about the dangers of merging faith with political power, we are now seeing a version of that same dynamic take hold at the highest levels of American government. It’s not just creeping in; it is actively shaping how this war is being understood and justified—from those advising the president to military commanders briefing troops before their deployment.
[...]
The US military was never meant to fight for a religious prophecy. In fact, the founding fathers were so concerned about the line between church and state—which includes the military—that they included it in the Bill of Rights.
But today, under Trump, Hegseth, and the Christian nationalist movement that surrounds them, that line is being erased in real time.
The price of that erasure will be paid for with the lives of innocent civilians abroad. It may be paid for with the lives of innocent civilians here at home. And it will surely be paid for by American soldiers, sailors and airmen and women, many of whom are being told they are carrying out God’s command.
At The Guardian on Sunday, David Smith emphasized how Hegseth has combined "bombastic" threats—asserting that Iranian leaders "are toast" and bragging that "we are punching them while they’re down" as evidence emerged that the US was behind a strike on a girls' school—with his displays of Christian nationalist beliefs.
“Pete Hegseth is a very dangerous person," Janessa Goldbeck of Vet Voice Foundation told Smith. "He’s a white Christian nationalist and has the arsenal of the United States government at his disposal and a permission slip from President Trump to deploy carnage wherever he wishes against whomever he wishes.”
"If a member of Congress said that Jews shouldn't be let into America, would Mike Johnson reply by saying... there's a lot of problems with the Talmud?" said one critic.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday defended a Republican colleague who made an explicitly bigoted attack on Muslims.
During a press conference at the US Capitol, Johnson (R-La.) was asked about remarks made by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who wrote a social media post on Monday declaring that "Muslims don't belong in American society."
Johnson indicated that he took issue with the tone of Ogles' statement, but defended its underlying sentiment.
"Look, I've spoken to those members, and all members, as I always do, about our tone and our message and what we say," Johnson began. "Look, there's a lot of energy in the country, a lot of popular sentiment, that the demand to impose Sharia law in America is a serious problem. That's what animates this."
Mike Johnson on House Republicans' Islamophobic rhetoric: "There's a lot of energy in the country and a lot of popular sentiment that the demand to impose Sharia Law in America is a serious problem" pic.twitter.com/TmPrxMZmiA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 10, 2026
Johnson provided no evidence that backed up his assertion that the potential imposition of Sharia, which is the legal system based on Islamic scriptures, is a "serious problem" in the US. The number of cities and states in the US that recognize the authority of Sharia is zero and there is no movement pushing to change that.
Johnson went on to say that Ogles "used different language than I would have used" when he said Muslims "don't belong" in the US, but he reiterated that the fears animating Ogles' remarks were "a serious issue."
"Sharia law, and the imposition of Sharia law, is contrary to the US Constitution," Johnson said, without offering any examples of Sharia being imposed in the US. "When you seek to come to a country and to not assimilate, but to impose Sharia law... that is the conflict that people are talking about. It is not about people, as Muslims, it is about those who seek to impose a different police system that is in direct conflict with the Constitution."
In fact, Ogles' post did not specify he was only opposed to the imposition of Sharia law. Rather, he flatly declared that "Muslims don't belong in American society."
Mehdi Hasan, editor-in-chief of Zeteo News, expressed disgust with Johnson's evasion about Ogles' bigoted statements.
"Rep. Ogles said Muslims don't belong in America," he wrote. "And this is all Speaker Mike Johnson can bring him to say in response??"
Journalist Laura Rozen was baffled by Johnson's attempt to justify Ogles' views.
"Who is demanding imposing Sharia law in America?" she asked.
Journalist Zaid Jilani conducted a thought experiment where he tried applying Johnson's defense of Ogles' attacks on Muslims to attacks on other religious minorities.
"If a member of Congress said that Jews shouldn't be let into America," Jilani wondered, "would Mike Johnson reply by saying, well I wouldn't use those words, but there's a lot of problems with the Talmud?"