In late May, 19 Republican attorneys general filed a complaint with the Supreme Court asking it to block climate change lawsuits seeking to recoup damages from fossil fuel companies.
All of the state attorneys general who participated in the legal action are members of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which runs a cash-for-influence operation that coordinates the official actions of these GOP state AGs and sells its corporate funders access to them and their staff. The majority of all state attorneys general are listed as members of RAGA.
Where does RAGA get most of its funding? From the very same fossil fuel industry interests that its suit seeks to defend. In fact, the industry has pumped nearly $5.8 million into RAGA’s campaign coffers since Biden was elected in 2020.
The recent Supreme Court complaint has been deemed “highly unusual” by legal experts.
The attorneys general claim that Democratic states, which are bringing the climate-related suits at issue in state courts, are effectively trying to regulate interstate emissions or commerce, which are under the sole purview of the federal government. Fossil fuel companies have unsuccessfully made similar arguments in their own defense.
RAGA’s official actions — and those of its member attorneys general — closely align with the goals of its biggest donors.
The group, a registered political nonprofit that can raise unlimited amounts of cash from individuals and corporations, solicits annual membership fees from corporate donors in exchange for allowing those donors to shape legal policy via briefings and other interactions with member attorneys general.
A Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) analysis of IRS filings since November 24, 2020 shows that Koch Industries (which recently rebranded) leads as the largest fossil fuel industry donor to RAGA, having donated $1.3 million between 2021 and June 2024.
Other large donors include:
• American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s largest trade association
• Southern Company Services, a gas and electric utility holding company
• Valero Services, a petroleum refiner
• NextEra Energy Resources, which runs both renewable and natural gas operations
• Anschutz Corporation, a Denver-based oil and gas company
• American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major trade organization
• Exxon Mobil, one of the largest fossil fuel multinationals in the world
• National Mining Association, the leading coal and mineral industry trade organization
• American Chemical Council, which represents major petrochemical producers and refiners
Many of these donors are being sued for deceiving the public about the role fossil fuels play in worsening climate change: many states — including California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — as well as local governments — such as the city of Chicago and counties in Oregon and Pennsylvania — have all filed suits against a mix of fossil fuel companies and their industry groups. In the cases brought by New York and Massachusetts, ExxonMobil found support from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of the corporation.
Paxton has accepted $5.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry over the past 10 years, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets and reviewed by CMD.
Fossil Fuel Contributions to the Republican Attorneys General Association
Includes aggregate contributions of $10K or more from the period November 2020 to March 2024.
Note: This funding compilation does not include law firms, front groups, or public relations outfits that work on behalf of fossil fuel clients, many of which use legal shells to shield themselves from outright scrutiny. For example, Koch Industries, through its astroturf operation Americans for Prosperity, has deployed a shell legal firm in a major Supreme Court case designed to dismantle the federal government’s regulatory authority.
CARRYING BIG OIL’S WATER
This is far from the first time RAGA members have banded together to try to defeat clean energy and environmental regulations. In 2014, the New York Times initially reported on how RAGA circulates fossil fuel industry propaganda opposing federal regulations.
The Times investigation revealed thousands of documents exposing how oil and gas companies cozied up to Republican attorneys general to push back against President Obama’s regulatory agenda. “Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns,” the investigation found. That effort, which RAGA dubbed the Rule of Law campaign, has since morphed into RAGA’s political action arm, the nonprofit Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF).
Since then, RAGA’s appetite to go to bat for the industry has only grown.
In 2015, less than two weeks after representatives from fossil fuel companies and related trade groups attended a RAGA conference, Republican AGs petitioned federal courts to block the Obama administration’s signature climate proposal, as CMD has previously reported. Additional reporting revealed collusion between Republican AGs and industry lobbyists to defend ExxonMobil and obstruct climate change legislation.
There was also the 2016 secret energy summit that RAGA held in West Virginia with industry leaders, along with private meetings with fossil fuel companies to coordinate how to shield ExxonMobil from legal scrutiny. Later that year, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey — aided by 19 other Republican AGs — successfully brought a case before the court that hobbled Obama’s signature climate plan.
Morrisey is currently leading the Republican effort to take down an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that targets coal-fired power plants.
Often, the attorneys general bringing these cases share many of the same donors who backed the confirmation of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, as pointed out by the New York Times.
And in 2021, Republican attorneys general from 19 states sent a letter to the U.S. Senate committees on Environment and Public Works and on Energy and Natural Resources hoping to persuade senators to vote against additional regulations on highly polluting methane emissions, a leading contributor to global warming.
Since 2022, RLDF’s “ESG Working Group” has been coordinating actions taken by Republican AGs against sustainable investing. Communications from that group obtained by CMD show that it was investigating Morningstar/Sustainalytics and the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. Republican AGs announced investigations into the six largest banks for information on their involvement in the Net-Zero Banking Alliance later that year.
LEGACY OF RIGHT-WING ACTIONS
It’s not only about fossil fuels. Attorneys general who are members of — and financially backed by — RAGA have a long track record of pursuing right-wing agendas. In Mississippi, Attorney General Lynn Fitch helped bring the legal case that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade. In Texas, Paxton has attempted to overturn the Affordable Care Act and sued the federal government over Title IX civil rights protections, and safeguards for seasonal workers, among other policy irritants to the far Right. With support from fellow Republican AGs, he also led one of many efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
In recent years, other pro-corporate major donors have included The Concord Fund, which is controlled by Trump’s “court whisperer” Leonard Leo, Big Tobacco, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform.
21 notes
·
View notes
UnitedHealthcare, the largest health insurance company in the US, is allegedly using a deeply flawed AI algorithm to override doctors' judgments and wrongfully deny critical health coverage to elderly patients. This has resulted in patients being kicked out of rehabilitation programs and care facilities far too early, forcing them to drain their life savings to obtain needed care that should be covered under their government-funded Medicare Advantage Plan.
It's not just flawed, it's flawed in UnitedHealthcare's favor.
That's not a flaw... that's fraud.
44K notes
·
View notes
Pennsylvania’s public defenders are so underfunded and overburdened that the commonwealth violates the constitutional rights of more than 100,000 criminal defendants every year, the state chapter of American Civil Liberties Union claims in a lawsuit filed Thursday.
For decades, Pennsylvania has left counties to pay for attorneys to defend people facing criminal charges who can’t afford to pay for a lawyer themselves. The result is an inconsistent patchwork in which public defenders are forced to contend with unmanageable caseloads that leave them unable to properly represent clients, the lawsuit says.
The suit was filed in Commonwealth Court on behalf of 17 people, many of whom have been jailed while awaiting trial for six months or longer, claiming public defenders have failed to properly represent them and that the state has neglected its constitutional duty to provide representation.
“The inconsistent and insufficient funding of indigent defense in Pennsylvania makes us less safe,” ACLU of Pennsylvania Executive Director Mike Lee said in a news release about the lawsuit. Lee added that with the exception of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is tied with Mississippi for the lowest funded state public defender system on a per-resident basis.
The U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions both provide the right to counsel for anyone charged with a crime and facing jail time, ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak said.
“That right means more than a warm body with a law degree at your side; it requires an effective professional who has the time and resources to prepare a defense,” Walczak said. “Pennsylvania’s grossly under-funded system leads to overwhelming caseloads that make effective representation practically impossible, even for the most dedicated lawyers.”
The 152-page suit details the experiences of the plaintiffs and others in criminal cases where they lacked timely and adequate representation from public defenders. Most have only spoken to their attorneys once or twice and one plaintiff claims he only met his attorney because they happened to walk past while he was cutting grass outside the jail, the suit claims.
In one example, a Northampton County man sat in jail for nearly three months on charges of driving an unregistered vehicle without proof of insurance until a public defender argued for a reduction in his bail.
The suit, which is a proposed class-action on behalf of the 17 plaintiffs and others in similar situations, names Gov. Josh Shapiro, state Senate Pro Tempore Kim Ward, and House Speaker Joanna McClinton as defendants. A spokesperson for Ward said she has not received a copy of the suit and would need time to review it before commenting.
Spokesperson Nicole Reigelman noted that McClinton began her career as a public defender, and “knows firsthand the value that indigent defense plays in the judicial system.”
“Since being elected in 2015, she has used her experience as a defender to inform her policy agenda and has been an outspoken champion of legislation to improve access to legal counsel for indigent clients. Speaker McClinton celebrated when funding for indigent defense was finally included in the 2023-24 state budget and continues to advocate for additional dollars,” Reigelman said in a statement.
The current state budget included $7.5 million for indigent defense, the first time the state has provided funding for public defenders. In his February 2023 budget address, Shapiro noted that Pennsylvania is one of only two states that didn’t provide funding for public defenders, which he called a “shameful distinction.”
The suit notes that amount falls far short of providing adequate funding. It also states that every county in Pennsylvania, with the exception of Philadelphia, falls below the national average of $19.82 per resident spent on indigent defense.
Pennsylvania counties spent a total of $125 million on their public defender’s offices in 2020, while similarly-sized Michigan is budgeted to spend $319 million in 2024. Massachusetts, which is considerably smaller, budgeted $331 million.
And because counties are limited in their ability to generate tax revenue, they could not provide adequate funding without significant tax increases. The suit notes that the same factors that limit revenues, such as high unemployment, poverty and limited higher education, are also indicators of higher crime rates.
The ACLU also argues that Pennsylvania agencies have been warning for decades that the state’s delegation of funding for public defenders to the counties results in the systemic denial of counsel to criminal defendants.
A state Supreme Court study in 2003 found that sparse resources and “exploding and unmanageable caseloads” allow public defenders little time, training or assistance in communicating with clients in a meaningful way or to conduct pre-trial investigations, secure expert testimony or otherwise prepare for hearings and trials.
The report recommended that Pennsylvania institute a statewide system for funding and overseeing indigent defense. The state failed to act on the recommendation. Nearly a decade later, a legislative commission reached a similar conclusion. And in 2020 the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission for Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness warned that the underfunding of indigent defense services cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate and retry defendants due to failure of public defenders to represent them effectively.
In connection with the funding for public defenders as part of the 2023-24 budget, the General Assembly created the Indigent Defense Advisory Committee.
“As one of its first official acts, one of the Committee’s two proposed standards recognized that “[t]he responsibility to provide indigent defense representation rests with the state; accordingly, there should be adequate state funding and oversight of Indigent Defense Providers,” the lawsuit notes.
7 notes
·
View notes