

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.

Arielle Swernoff: arielle@stopthemoneypipeline.com,
Ginny Cleaveland: ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.org,
Resolutions at major North American banks and several insurers push companies to phase-out financing of fossil fuel expansion, protect Indigenous rights, and institute better climate policies
A coalition of over 240 climate, justice, and multi-issue organizations announced their support of four shareholder resolutions filed at major US and Canadian banks and insurance companies this spring. The resolutions include requiring banks and insurance companies to phase out their financing of companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion, report on projects that could violate Indigenous rights, use absolute emissions rather than emissions intensity targets, disclose 2030 transition plans, and hold directors accountable at banks that are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways. The resolutions were filed by a variety of investors, including the New York City and New York State pension funds, the Sierra Club Foundation, Trillium Asset Management, As You Sow, and others.
Ahead of the companies’ annual general meetings, Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 200 organizations, is launching a ‘Shareholder Showdown’ campaign to encourage investors to vote yes on the resolutions and against failing directors. Stop the Money Pipeline is also pushing banks and insurance companies to pass policies, ahead of their AGMs, that would prohibit lending, underwriting and insuring to corporations engaged in fossil fuel expansion.
“Shareholders have immediate opportunities to hold banks accountable for their role in the climate crisis by supporting this full slate of resolutions, and by voting against corporate directors failing to manage climate risks. Major investors like BlackRock and CalPERS must support these critical votes, and if they don’t, it will reveal their abject failure to understand both the systemic risk climate change poses to their portfolios and their fiduciary duty to address it. Their clients will be watching,” said Jessye Waxman, Senior Campaign Representative in the Sierra Club’s Fossil-Free Finance campaign.
FOSSIL FUEL PHASE OUT
The fossil fuel phase-out resolutions are updated versions of resolutions filed last year at the six largest American banks and three major insurers calling for an end to financing and underwriting of fossil fuel expansion. The resolutions clarify that the request is to phase-out new fossil fuel financing and insurance coverage, rather than abruptly end client relationships, which some banks and insurers used as an excuse the previous year. Proponents believe these updates will significantly boost shareholder support.
According to an influential report released by the International Energy Agency in 2021, as well as a growing consensus of the world’s leading scientists and energy experts, in order to have a fifty percent chance of curtailing global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and limiting the worst impacts of the climate crisis, investment in new fossil fuel supply needs to cease.
Despite this clear warning, and despite public pledges to be Paris-aligned, the six largest American banks – JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs – provided nearly $500 billion in lending and underwriting to the 100 corporations most aggressively expanding fossil fuel operations since 2016. Meanwhile, US-based insurance giants Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers are among the top insurance providers to the global oil and gas industry..
These resolutions were filed by the Sierra Club Foundation at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo; by Trillium Asset Management at Bank of America; by Harrington Investments at Citigroup; by Stand.earth at Royal Bank of Canada; and by Green Century Funds at Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers.
“Financial institutions are trying to project this image that they're good with money - but how good are you with money if you end up destroying your own house for profit? That's exactly what Wall Street is doing by financing unlimited fossil fuel expansion. People are fighting back, and now shareholders have a chance to amplify the demands of frontline communities. Curbing expansion is fiscally sound, socially responsible, and shows that they value investing in resilient communities and a just energy future." - Aditi Sen, Climate and Energy Program Director at Rainforest Action Network
"The planet is running out of time and the banks are running out of excuses--everyone from the Pope to the Secretary General of the UN have called on them finally to act with clarity and conviction to help with the planet's greatest crisis, and shareholders should demand no less,” said writer and activist Bill McKibben.
The Indigenous rights resolution at Citigroup, filed by Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace calls for a report on the effectiveness of bank practices, policies, and performance indicators in respecting internationally-recognized human rights standards for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in its existing and proposed general corporate and project financing.
In recent years, Citi has provided financing for projects and companies that clearly violate Indigenous rights: they were the lead financier of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016; provided over $5 billion to Enbridge, enabling the Line 3 and Line 5 pipelines; and helped GeoPark secure over $650 million for oil drilling in the Colombian Amazon despite a lack of consent from local Indigenous peoples and a clear history on behalf of the company of damaging Indigenous lands, health, and livelihoods.
Domini Impact Investments filed a resolution at Chubb requesting a report describing how human rights risks and impacts are evaluated and incorporated in the company’s underwriting process, specifically calling attention to the extent to which Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is considered in the underwriting process.
“Free Prior and Informed Consent means actual meaningful engagement with all impacted Indigenous communities and obtaining actual documented consent from impacted communities, otherwise the projects do not happen. The era of these financial institutions paying lip service to Indigenous rights, human rights, and environmental justice is over it is time to truly respect the rights of Indigenous peoples,” said Matt Remle from Mazaska Talks.
"Indigenous frontline environmental defenders continue to bear the brunt of the climate crisis, all while facing severe bodily threats for their collective resistance against the industries most responsible for it. Due to pervasive oil and gas extraction, made possible by unmitigated fossil financing, communities’ livelihoods and lands remain threatened. Investors and financial institutions must uphold Indigenous rights, human rights, and climate at the forefront of its agenda," said Mary Mijares, Fossil Finance Campaigner at Amazon Watch
ABSOLUTE EMISSIONS TARGETS
A third resolution, filed by the New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and three of the New York City Retirement Systems (the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’ Retirement System, and Board of Education Retirement System) at Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Royal Bank of Canada calls on the banks to disclose absolute emissions targets for 2030. Citi and Wells Fargo already report absolute emissions reductions.
These banks currently have made emissions intensity pledges, an accounting trick that would allow banks to increase their financed emissions overall while reducing the amount of emissions per dollar financed in the fossil fuel sector. In order to be Paris-aligned, emissions must decrease absolutely. These resolutions would hold banks to a science-based standard for meeting their stated climate targets.
“Experts such as the United Nations High-Level Expert Group have made it clear that for climate commitments to be taken seriously companies must use absolute emissions metrics when setting climate targets,” said Stop the Money Pipeline coalition co-director, Alec Connon, “Yet, most of the country’s largest banks have set their climate targets using far weaker carbon intensity metrics. By voting yes on these resolutions, shareholders can help end this practice of greenwashing from some of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuels.”
TRANSITION PLANS
These resolutions, filed by As You Sow at JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, call on banks to publicly disclose their 2030 plans for transitioning their lending and investment portfolios away from fossil fuels. A transition plan could include, for example, disclosure of clients’ estimated annual reductions and how the bank plans to achieve remaining reductions. Additional actions may include client and employee incentives or disincentives; setting requirements, including loan approval guidelines, investment and underwriting priorities or prohibitions; and policies or
guidelines that otherwise restrict, limit, or condition bank business activities, among others.
DIRECTOR VOTES
Investors are encouraged to vote against the reelection of directors responsible for climate oversight at institutions that have failed to align targets and lending and underwriting policies with credible 1.5°C low/no overshoot scenarios.
Directors are responsible for oversight of strategic planning, including management of climate risks. As climate risk grows both as an economy-wide systemic risk and as a sector-specific risk for banks, board directors are failing in their fiduciary duties when companies under their oversight fail to adopt and execute comprehensive climate risk management policies. Where issuers have failed to adopt and disclose climate policies that align with 1.5°C pathways, it indicates that directors responsible for such oversight are either unwilling or unable to successfully lead the company through the decarbonization transition. Investors are encouraged to vote against such directors.
Additional members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition released the following statements:
“Public pensions are meant to be the longest-term investors, yet they’re doing business with the very banks financing climate chaos,” said Amy Gray, Stand.earth Climate Finance Senior Strategist. “Pension funds must live up to their fiduciary duty, and protect pensioners and climate alike, by wielding their institutional investor power for climate resolutions at banks’ shareholder meetings this Spring.”
“As communities of color are literally fighting for our lives on the frontlines of the climate crisis, U.S banks continue funding the fossil fuel industry. These banks target communities, like mine, treating us as collateral damage to corporate profiteering. This needs to stop. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable and damaging to our health and environment. We must shift our focus to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower, which are cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable in the long-term. Banks should invest in energy-efficiency measures, such as LED lighting and energy-efficient appliances, to reduce our energy consumption and carbon footprint. These steps are necessary to ensure a healthier and more sustainable future for all.” - Roishetta Ozane, Founder and CEO of the Vessel Project
"Climate change is an existential crisis that can overwhelm a person in scale and size, impossible to address. Big bank shareholders possess an enormous amount of influence on the world’s emissions. A roomful of people can impact the disastrous course we are currently on. No more lip service or empty greenwashing — we need action, now.” Tara Houska, Giniw Collective.
“Right now, people across Canada and North America are paying the costs of Royal Bank of Canada’s misguided fossil fuel financing through devastating fires and floods. Instead of greenwashing and redwashing, RBC has the opportunity to step into real leadership and end fossil fuel expansion financing at its April 5 shareholder meeting. Science and justice make it clear: for any shot at curbing the worst of climate destruction, there can be no new fossil fuel projects. We call on all shareholders – from retail investors to big pension funds – to support this resolution, and direct RBC to align its financing with its rhetoric of honoring Indigenous sovereignty and acting on the climate crisis.” - Richard Brooks, Stand.earth Climate Finance Director
“In Wells Fargo’s Indigenous People Statement it states that it “recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources, including air and water, upon which they depend”, and yet it finances projects that harm those lands and natural resources, including air and water, upon which they depend.” – Troy Horton, Extinction Rebellion Phoenix
“This shareholder season it’s crucial that investors support linked resolutions filed with banks and insurance companies: to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights that are impacted by the fossil fuel industry are respected; to phase out financing and underwriting for the expansion of the fossil fuel sector; and to urge banks to align their financing with science-based emission reduction targets.” - Fran Teplitz, Executive Co-director, Green America
“At a time when financial institutions are STILL accelerating climate instability with their investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure, it is imperative that shareholders exercise their right to hold their directors accountable. In the short term, this is a moral necessity. In the long term, it is good business.” - John Seakwood, Organizer, Rivers & Mountains GreenFaith Circle
“As insurance companies fuel the climate crisis by continuing to invest in and underwrite new fossil fuel projects, shareholders are stepping up to hold the industry accountable. Insurers must adopt new policies that phase out insurance coverage for any new fossil fuel projects and align themselves with the Paris Accords. - Tom Swan, Executive Director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG).
“Big banks must stop pumping money into an industry that is driving the climate crisis. As people around the world face extreme weather disasters, threats to public health, and systemic economic risk, institutions such as JPMorgan Chase are ignoring climate science by providing billions of dollars in financing to fossil fuel companies that continue to expand their production of oil and gas. To safeguard communities, investors, and the global economy, shareholders should insist that banks incentivize swift and deep cuts in heat-trapping emissions to limit climate change harms and facilitate a just transition to a clean energy economy,” said Kathy Mulvey, Director of the Climate Accountability Campaign at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“It is time shareholders start looking at their families and how water and air pollution will affect them versus their bottom dollar. Money can’t buy clean, pure water.At a time in the world when climate change, seasons, disasters are moving at warp speed, we need these banks, corporations, funding institutions to stop being a machine. It is all across the globe, capitalism, consumerism, it’s all just superficial. These Banking Industry leaders, or CEO’s are not doing it for the right thing. They are all trendy and say they have diversity, equity, justice and inclusion committees, making words look great on paper, but are still plowing through BIPOC communities as warp speed, as the government looks on. I ask would you poison your own grandmother, then why do it to our grandmothers?” - Dr. Crystal Cavalier - Co Founder and CEO of 7 Directions of Service.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
White House officials "just straight up fabricated shit," said the Democratic senator from Connecticut.
Just hours before the Trump administration conducted what it claimed were "self-defense strikes" against "Iranian military facilities," The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship."
Citing four unnamed officials familiar with the analysis, the newspaper highlighted that "the CIA analysis might even be underestimating Iran's economic resilience if Tehran is able to smuggle oil via overland routes."
Militarily, "Iran retains about 75% of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70% of its prewar stockpiles of missiles," the Post added. "There is evidence that the regime has been able to recover and reopen almost all of its underground storage facilities, repair some damaged missiles, and even assemble some new missiles that were nearly complete when the war began."
Drop Site News' Murtaza Hussain responded that if this assessment along with a previous one from the Center for Strategic and International Studies about "remaining US munitions and interceptor capacity are even approximately correct, it goes a long way to explaining why Trump seems so eager to end the war whereas the Iranians have either dug in or escalated their negotiating positions. The missile math of continuing the conflict would be much more favorable to the Iranians, especially if the war continued for a significant time."
"Prior to the war, interceptor capacity compared to the size of the Iranian missile stockpile seemed like the most rationally incontrovertible reason to avoid fighting such a conflict, even for people who found it politically desirable," he added. "This also might explain why the US and Israel pivoted towards the end to threatening countervalue strikes against civilian targets if attempts to destroy the underground missile cities by air were ineffective."
The Post's reporting came one month into a fragile ceasefire and starkly contrasts the recent framing of conditions in Iran from President Donald Trump and others in his administration, including Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) responded to the Post's reporting by quoting Hegseth, who said in March that "never before has a modern, capable military, which Iran used to have, been so quickly destroyed and made combat ineffective."
Murphy declared: "They lied through their teeth. Just straight up fabricated shit."
Still, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stuck to the administration's framing in a Thursday statement to the Post.
"During Operation Epic Fury, Iran was crushed militarily," Kelly said. "Now, they are being strangled economically by Operation Economic Fury and losing $500 million per day thanks to the United States military's successful blockade of Iranian ports. The Iranian regime knows full well their current reality is not sustainable, and President Trump holds all the cards as negotiators work to make a deal."
Meanwhile, some experts were unsurprised that the CIA privately delivered a "sober" assessment contradicting the administration's public commentary on the conflict—which it now claims is no longer an active "war," seemingly to dodge a key congressional deadline.
"Nice to know that a confidential CIA analysis is confirming what close observers of the Iranian economy have been saying publicly for weeks! Intelligent policymakers rely on intelligence. But Trump jeopardized diplomacy by instigating a blockade that was never going to work," said Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Europe and founder of the think tank Bourse & Bazaar Foundation.
Sharing the reporting on social media, Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at the think tank Defense Priorities, wrote: "As I argued a week into the U.S. blockade, Iran can hold out for months without economic collapse. The costs for the US and the world are increasingly unsustainable, however."
Earlier this week, Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated that the US government spent $71.8 billion on the Iran War during its first 60 days, an average of $1.2 billion daily. The International Monetary Fund warned last month that the conflict could cause a global recession.
Last Friday, Trump responded to the War Powers Act's 60-day deadline by claiming to Congress that his war—which already violated US and international law—had been "terminated." The White House said at the time that no fire had been exchanged since April 7, when a ceasefire deal was reached just hours after the president issued a genocidal threat against the Iranian people.
However, on Thursday evening, United States Central Command announced that Iran "launched multiple missiles, drones, and small boats" at American warships. CENTCOM added that it "eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking US forces, including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance nodes."
"Local hospitals and emergency rooms could shut their doors forever because billionaires insist on paying less than the rest of us," said Emmanuel Saez, the French economist who designed California's wealth tax proposal.
The architect of California's wealth tax proposal called out The Washington Post and its multibillionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, on Thursday for peddling what he said is "misinformation" to readers.
Emmanuel Saez, a French economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was tapped by California's largest union to design the tax proposal, singled out an opinion piece by the Washington Post editorial board from earlier this week that argues the proposal would backfire and cost California billions of dollars in tax revenue each year.
Saez said the article contains glaring falsehoods and omits key information about the proposal, which aims to create a one-time tax of 5% on the total assets of California's roughly 200 billionaire residents in order to recoup about $100 billion in revenue for healthcare, food assistance, and education stripped from the state by last year's Republican federal budget legislation, which will hand $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% of Americans over the next 10 years.
The piece, published on Monday with the headline "California already losing with billionaire tax referendum," argues that even if California voters don't ultimately approve the measure, "the specter of such a wealth tax has already cost the state more in lost future revenue from income taxes than it would raise" due to an exodus of wealthy people from the state—an oft-used but weakly substantiated talking point by opponents of the measure.
The Post cited a paper by Jared Walczak, a visiting fellow at the California Tax Foundation, which it said demonstrates that billionaire flight "will cost California’s state government somewhere between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion every year in other tax collections, and up to $19 billion in lost [gross domestic product]."
But Saez argued that his study makes a "basic mistake" by "modeling a mobility response of billionaires to a permanent annual and recurrent 5% wealth tax." In reality, though, the tax would be imposed only once and would apply to any billionaires who resided in the state after January 1, 2026, which has already passed, so it no longer creates an incentive to move.
Saez argued that in any case, "Walczak’s estimation of the California income tax paid by billionaires who have threatened to leave is also wildly exaggerated."
Walczak's figure for lost tax revenue, he said, hinges on the idea that the three richest men who've threatened to leave the state, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, pay $1.7 billion in California income taxes each year.
"If only they paid so much!" Saez quipped.
"In reality, using Securities and Exchange Commission data on stock sales, stock donations, dividends, and executive compensation, we can directly estimate that they paid only [$269 million] in California income tax in 2025, 6.3 times less than Walczak’s assumption," he said, citing a paper he co-wrote in March responding to a similar argument by a conservative think tank.
He cited tax data showing that the tech tycoons—who own a combined $810 billion according to Forbes—only collectively paid about [$22 million] per year on average between 2019-25, with Brin and Page paying no taxes on their wealth from stock in Google's parent company Alphabet during three of those years because they didn't sell stock, get dividends, or receive executive compensation. This is despite 90% of their wealth coming from those holdings.
"The one-time wealth tax finally makes them contribute in proportion to their enormous wealth gains," Saez said.
The Post also claimed that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, the union leading the charge in support of the referendum, is "pretend[ing] that the tax is needed to save California’s health system from 'collapse'" and is instead dishonestly using that framing to covertly pursue the "redistribution of wealth."
But Saez said that the federal cuts of roughly $20 billion annually are already having devastating effects on Californians that could be alleviated with more tax revenue.
As a result of the cuts, "more than 400 California hospitals have already laid off more than 3,400 healthcare workers as of mid-March, with a second wave of layoffs expected as funding cuts tied to recent federal policy changes are phased in over the next several years," he said. "Statewide, projections show the cuts could result in the loss of up to 145,000 healthcare jobs, impacting hospitals, clinics, and home care providers alike."
Eighty-three more hospitals in California may be at risk of closing due to the federal funding cuts, according to a recent nationwide analysis by Public Citizen. But Saez said the billionaire's tax would go a long way toward closing the gap.
"Right now, California’s billionaires pay much lower tax rates than what working families pay out of every paycheck," Saez said.
Despite claims otherwise by the Post editorial board—which last month ran another piece arguing that due to progressive taxation, "the rich already pay more than their fair share"—according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, at all levels of government from 2018-20, billionaires paid just 24% of their total income in taxes, while the US-wide average was 30%. This disparity arises largely due to loopholes that allow the rich to avoid taxes on business and investment gains that are not sold.
"Local hospitals and emergency rooms could shut their doors forever because billionaires insist on paying less than the rest of us," Saez said.
Debru Carthan, the executive vice president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, said it was not surprising that the Post "completely ignores that the billionaire tax would keep hospitals from closing and healthcare costs from skyrocketing for millions of Californians" because it is "a crisis that comes as a direct result of the tax breaks handed out to Jeff Bezos and his buddies."
Since the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, the Amazon founder has taken a much heavier hand over the content of his flagship paper, including its opinion section, which he last year mandated to exclusively publish pieces on economics that promote “personal liberties and free markets," leading to the resignation of opinion editor David Shipley.
But Saez marveled at how blatant Bezos' thumb on the scale has appeared in his paper's coverage of California's billionaire wealth tax and similar proposals, which it has denounced on several other occasions.
“Are readers meant to take this seriously?" Saez asked. "‘Board of billionaire-owned paper comes out against tax on billionaires’? Everyone knows this board makes political decisions at the behest of Jeff Bezos, but this one is the most transparent of them all."
"Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed," said Norman Solomon of RootsAction, which has led calls for the release.
Even former Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly "has no problem with a public airing" of the Democratic National Committee's internal "autopsy" report on her 2024 loss to Republican President Donald Trump—which the DNC has continued to conceal, despite mounting demands for transparency.
Harris' position was reported Thursday by NBC News, which noted that "while she indicated to donors that she had no issue with releasing it, Harris has not discussed the postmortem with DNC Chairman Ken Martin and did not know about his decision to keep it under wraps until it happened."
NBC cited "a person who has heard the conversations," one of multiple sources journalists Jonathan Allen and Natasha Korecki spoke with for their broader report exploring "turmoil over the Democratic Party’s future" and Harris' consideration of a 2028 run.
For months, Martin has resisted pressure to release the autopsy—which, as Axios revealed in February, found that the Biden administration's support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip contributed to Harris' defeat.
Citing a "person close to Harris," NBC also reported Thursday that the former VP "is signaling privately that she has more to say about the Middle East now that she is freed from the Biden White House policy," and "she is likely to do so after the midterm elections," either "from the perspective of a party elder or from the perspective of a candidate seeking votes."
While touring the country for the book she wrote after her loss, Harris has publicly acknowledged that she is weighing another White House run. Though the 2028 election is two and a half years away, she has led early polling. However, the party's potential primary field is incredibly crowded, featuring dozens of current or former governors and members of Congress.
Potential contenders include governors from the Trump 2.0 era—such as Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan—as well as leading progressive voices in Congress, such as Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Norman Solomon, national director of RootsAction, which has spearheaded calls for publishing the full postmortem, wrote in a recent opinion piece for Common Dreams that "Martin's concealment of the autopsy report puts a thumb on the scale for one candidate: Kamala Harris."
Solomon highlighted the DNC's reported conclusion about the role of the Gaza genocide in the election result, and suggested that "renewed attention to the Harris 2024 finances would also be unwelcome."
In response to Harris' reported remarks to donors, Solomon said Thursday that "more than four months have passed since Martin announced he was reneging on his promise to release the autopsy.
"But Harris still hasn't made any public statement that she believes it should be released," he added. "Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed."