March, 05 2013, 11:54am EDT
Groups Urge FEC to Take Action Against Chevron for $2.5 Million Super PAC Contribution
Money Given to Congressional Leadership Fund Violates Prohibition on Political Giving by Federal Contractors
WASHINGTON
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) should take enforcement action against Chevron for its $2.5 million contribution to a Republican-tied super PAC because it violated a prohibition against political donations by federal contractors, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth U.S., Greenpeace and Oil Change International said in a complaint sent today to the FEC.
The FEC also should find the super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, in violation of the law for taking the money, because the people running the group should have known the contributions were illegal, the complaint said.
In October, Chevron gave $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC reportedly tied to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the congressional campaign committee of the Republican Party. Government contractors such as Chevron are strictly prohibited by federal law from making "any ... contribution to any political party, committee or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use."
The ban, also known as the "pay-to-play" prohibition, was passed by Congress in 1940 to curb corruption and the appearance of corruption due to the unique circumstances of private businesses bidding for lucrative government contracts. Such laws have been repeatedly upheld by the courts, starting with the 1995 Blount v. Securities and Exchange Commission decision and more recently in the Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield decision in 2010 and the Wagner v. FEC decision last year.
"The 'pay-to play' prohibition exists because of a long and seedy record of companies attempting to buy lucrative government business by filling the campaign coffers of politicians," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. "The same process also protects against officials extorting money from companies wishing to do business with the government."
Chevron's contribution accounted for about 22 percent of the super PAC's $11.3 million in receipts for the 2012 elections. The group spent $9.4 million in the elections, all of it on ads attacking 14 Democratic House of Representatives candidates.
"The notorious Citizens United v. FEC decision may, for the time being, allow corporations to make unlimited expenditures in our elections," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S., "but that decision did not change the law banning government contractors from trying to curry favor through campaign contributions."
Also troubling is that most super PACs are not independent; instead, they are tied closely to a single candidate or a political party, Holman said. In fact, 52 percent of the super PACs active in the 2012 elections were devoted to aiding a single candidate, according to a report Public Citizen released today, "Super Connected." An additional six super PACs were closely allied with one of the national political party committees. The Congressional Leadership Fund is one of those.
"Chevron's multimillion dollar contribution to the super PAC run on behalf of the National Republican Congressional Committee and House Speaker John Boehner is classic pay-to-play abuse at its worst," said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. "That money buys them government contracts and House leadership that reliably backs Big Oil's agenda including preserving subsidies and gutting regulations. It's a bargain for Chevron, and the American people have to pay."
"People around the world have stood up to Chevron for contaminating our communities," said Phil Radford, executive director of Greenpeace. "Now, together, we are standing up to the company's brazen attempt to pollute our democracy with its dirty money."
Federal law also prohibits political organizations and parties from soliciting donations from federal contractors. Public Citizen urges the FEC to look into the Congressional Leadership Fund's role in the $2.5 million donation.
"By taking a strong stand against Chevron's actions, the FEC would clearly signal to federal contractors and political organizations that trading cash for favors will not be tolerated," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "Such action is crucial to protect democracy from the corrupting influence of corporate money."
Public Citizen and allied groups are organizing a petition campaign to allow citizens to voice their opposition to Chevron's actions and the flood of corporate money in politics. Read the petition here.
The complaint is available at www.citizen.org/chevron-fec-complaint-super-connected-report-update.
To read the report, visit www.citizen.org/documents/super-connected-march-2013-update-candidate-super-pacs-not-independent-report.pdf.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Mike Johnson Touts $901 Billion Military Budget Plan After Gutting Medicaid, SNAP
"At such a time, bipartisan agreement to provide additional funds to the Pentagon would deliver a cruel message to the American public," advocacy groups warned.
Dec 08, 2025
Republican congressional leaders unveiled a sprawling military policy bill late Sunday that would authorize $901 billion in US military spending for the coming fiscal year, just months after GOP lawmakers and President Donald Trump pushed through the largest-ever cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who aggressively pushed cuts to Medicaid by peddling false claims of large-scale fraud, touted the 3,086-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as legislation that would "ensure our military forces remain the most lethal in the world."
The bill, a compromise between House and Senate versions of the annual legislation, would authorize $8 billion more in US military spending than Trump asked for in his 2026 budget request.
If passed, the 2026 NDAA would pump billions of dollars more into the Pentagon, a cesspool of the kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse that Johnson and other Republicans claim to be targeting when they cut safety net programs, stripping health insurance and food aid from millions. The Pentagon has never passed an independent audit and continues to have "significant fraud exposure," the Government Accountability Office said earlier this year.
"The surge in Pentagon spending stands in sharp contrast to the drastic cuts in healthcare and food assistance programs imposed by the reconciliation package."
Final passage of the NDAA would push total military spending authorized by Congress this year above $1 trillion, including the $150 billion in Pentagon funds included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
Last month, as Common Dreams reported, a coalition of watchdog and anti-war groups implored Congress not to approve any funding above the originally requested $892.6 billion, warning that additional money for the Pentagon would enable the Trump administration's lawless use of the military in US streets and overseas.
The groups also noted that "the surge in Pentagon spending stands in sharp contrast to the drastic cuts in healthcare and food assistance programs imposed by the reconciliation package."
"At such a time," they wrote in a letter to lawmakers, "bipartisan agreement to provide additional funds to the Pentagon would deliver a cruel message to the American public, one out of step with Democratic messaging over healthcare, reconciliation, and the shutdown."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular