Me or We?

Michael Moore’s stunning new documentary “SiCKO” premiers in theaters across the nation today. Already lauded at the Cannes film festival, Michael Moore’s new work details the ills of Americas failing health care system by drawing sharp contrasts between our system and that of our global neighbors.

Luckily, our own Savoy Theater here in Montpelier was one of the 400 theaters across the nation to receive the film in its first week. To celebrate the release of the film and to highlight the ongoing issues with Vermont’s health system Vermont Health Care for All, Vermont Workers Center, and VPIRG got together to buy up to 1000 tickets for uninsured Vermonters. The program was officially announced at a press conference before a special showing of the movie this morning where it was also announced that we had already been able to acquire more than 600 of those tickets away.

Quick side note: Props to Stefanie Sidrotsova, our new health care advocate, for an excellent first press conference.

I could go on and on about how the movie shines a light on what’s wrong with our health care system or the thousands of personal tragedies that happen every day because of these failures. But the film brings up a deeper truth:

Is this a society of Me or We?

In other words are we a society that purely cares about our own personal affairs to the detriment of our neighbors or are we a society that can pull together and care for the least of us the same way we do for those who have the most?

It could be said that the last time America was truly a “We” country was in the 1930’s and ‘40’s when we clawed our way out of the depression and then went on to win the most titanic struggle between good and evil this world has ever seen. Then, by the 1980’s our sense of “We” was buried under the mantra “greed is good.”

Or, one could say that America hasn’t lost all of its community mindedness. The brave souls from around the country who flocked to lower Manhattan one cloudless day in September are just one reminder that we still have it in us to do true good for the community. If only we could all come together for some higher purpose, like providing health care to all Americans, and not just in times of great tragedy.

Its the (w)right thing to do...

Last night the intrepid activists of Burlington Step it Up joined forces with VPIRG to get the word out to the last remaining Legislator in Burlington who is against overriding Gov. Douglas’ veto of the global warming bill.

His name?

Kurt Wright.

His phone number? (if you’d like to give him a call and ask him to do the ehemm… Wright thing)

658-1410

I must say, despite there being only seven of us it was a great event! We had lots of public interest in the form of honks, waves, shouts of support, and people stopping by. But an event like this is about more than just asking one legislator to do the right thing. It’s about keeping the conversation going.

Win or loose on July 11^th the most important thing is that all of keep going, keep struggling, and keep seeking the right answers to global climate change. In other words, no matter the cost, the derisive comments by blind bureaucrats (or governors…), or legislative mishaps the issue remains: Climate Change is real, it is happening, and we can do something about. The people who joined me last night in the new north end see that, as do many of you. Getting out and acting out is more than just our duty as citizens who care about our climate and future, it’s simply the right thing to do.

Oh, and by the way thanks to Peter Freyne for stopping by, snapping some shots, and getting some great quotes for his blog! Check out his blog post about us here. Oh yeah, and thanks again Peter for letting me use the photo.

Say Hello to our New Health Care Advocate and Michael Moore!

Hello out there – my name is Stefanie Sidortsova and I’m the new health care advocate at VPIRG. I’m very excited to be part of the group, and pleased to be involved in the Vermont premiere of Michael Moore’s latest film, SiCKO.

In case you haven’t heard, SiCKO is Moore’s take on America’s health care crisis and the current inner workings (for lack of a better term) of our health care industry. The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival and has since played to packed houses at sneak previews across the U.S. Many are saying this is Moore’s best film to date – even Fox News called it “brilliant and uplifting.”

Because we at VPIRG are working to obtain quality, affordable health care for all Vermonters, we’re hoping this film serves as a catalyst to move health care reform back to the top of Vermont’s priority list. We’ve made great strides in the past, but there’s still a long way to go.

So what do we want you to do? First, go see the film. Second, tell all your friends to go see the film. Third, and most importantly, help us reach our goal of providing 1,000 free tickets to un- and underinsured Vermonters. We’ve partnered with Vermont Health Care for All and the Vermont Workers Center to provide up to 1,000 free tickets to matinee showings of SiCKO at the Savoy Theater from June 29th to July 19th. These tickets are available to anyone struggling to pay their health care bills.

To find out how you can help, email me at stefanie@vpirg.org or call 223-8421, ext. 4097. Are you uninsured or underinsured? Please stop by the VPIRG office at 141 Main Street in Montpelier to pick up a ticket. Free tickets are also available at the Montpelier Health Center, the Peoples Clinic in Barre, Cambridge Family Health Center, Plainfield Health Center, the Barre Health Center, and the Central Vermont Community Action Council.

Thanks, and see you at the movies!

Douglas Picks politics ahead of principle

By Paul Burns, VPIRG Executive Director

Governor Douglas vetoed a popular campaign finance bill on May 31st that had been passed earlier this year in a unanimous vote of the Senate and with tri-partisan support in the House.

VPIRG worked very hard to pass this legislation in order to have some reasonable contribution limits in place for the 2008 elections after the Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s landmark campaign finance law last year.

Unfortunately, the governor blundered badly by failing to do his homework before vetoing this bill – S.164. His stated objections don’t hold up to a review of actual facts. Consider his four principle concerns:

1) Proposed individual and party contribution limits will extend a form of political protection to incumbents.

Response:
Research presented to the House Government Operations Committee by UVM campaign finance expert Tony Gierzinski proves that House races run under the strict limits in place from 2000 – 2004 were more competitive (more incumbents lost) than in races run before or since.

VPIRG analysis of some of the most competitive House and Senate races in 2006 shows effective campaigns can be waged by challengers in Vermont under the limits contained in S.164. In fact, almost no candidates raised money in amounts that would violate the limits in S.164 despite the fact that the law allowed for larger gifts last year.

Finally, a 2006 academic research study found that, “Analyses of both the number of contributors and the dollar amount of contributions [to gubernatorial candidates] suggest no support for an increased bias in favor of incumbents resulting from the presence of campaign contribution limits. If anything, contribution limits can work to reduce the bias that traditionally works in favor of incumbents. Also, contribution limits do not seem to increase disparities between gubernatorial candidates in general” (emphasis deleted). Eom & Gross, Contribution Limits and Disparity in Contributions Between Gubernatorial Candidates, 59 Pol. Research Q. 99, 99 (2006).

2) The proposed limits on the activities of political parties will empower special interest groups – whose independent actions and expenditures are unlimited – and provide a platform for these well-financed, often out-of-state, organizations to run more ads and make more independent expenditures than ever before.

Response:
S.164 imposes far greater restrictions on PACs than on political parties. Both political parties and PACs are free to make unlimited independent expenditures under the bill (since they cannot be restrained constitutionally). But while political parties can give up to $30,000 to a candidate running for governor (and lesser amounts to down-ticket offices), PACs are limited to giving no more than what an individual may give ($2,000 for governor and less for other offices). Furthermore, political parties are given wide leverage to perform various party-building activities and provide direct support to candidates in ways that are exempt from the contribution limits. PACs are not given a similar exemption under S.164. Therefore, the suggestion that political parties will be unable to respond to an independent attack ad sponsored by a PAC is factually incorrect.

The theory that such attack ads will be prevented by some sense of mutually assured destruction is also highly suspect. The ads are run in order to attack a particular candidate. The “Swift Boat Veterans” were probably not much worried about being attacked themselves. More to the point, there’s a better way to prevent such ads from being run by “outsiders” in Vermont. The 2006 U.S. House race proved that a highly competitive race could be waged without resorting to such negative advertising. The major party candidates in that race both deserve credit for making clear from the outset that they did not welcome such spending on their behalf. They recognized that Vermonters generally do not respond well to such advertising. That’s the kind of leadership we could use from the governor.


3) This proposal could be attacked as being unconstitutional just like the old law was.

Response:
Any law can be challenged, of course. But S.164 is very different from the law struck down by the Supreme Court last year. The 1997 campaign reform law that was challenged by the Republican Party and Right to Life Committee was designed to force a reconsideration of a 1976 Court ruling that said essentially that money equals speech. That law also had the lowest contribution limits in the nation. It was no surprise to anyone that the legal case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. By contrast, the contribution limits in S.164 are nearly identical to the state of Missouri’s contribution limits that were upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). This legislation (S.164) is on solid legal ground. However, the governor’s actions have opened the door to more litigation in Vermont because the old limits now in place could easily be challenged and quite possibly thrown out before November 2008. That would leave Vermont with no limits at all for next year’s elections!

4) The governor has also suggested that VPIRG’s work on the legislation was self-serving, that we will somehow derive a benefit if the law passes.

Response:
VPIRG is a nonpartisan organization that neither supports nor opposes candidates running for office. By contrast, it is Gov. Douglas who would benefit most by eliminating reasonable limits on what parties and very wealthy individual scan give. In the past he’s taken in more than $600,000 from the Republican Party in a single race! Now that’s self-serving.

A veto override vote is scheduled for July 11 at the State House.

Waiting for the Axe

It's been almost a month since the legisalture took a bold step forward on energy and global warming. After months of work, thousands of calls, hundreds of emails, 71 Step It Up events and innumerable local conversations, the Vermont legislature passed H.520 a comprehensive global warming bill. (In case you missed it, read our play-by-play posts from the floor)

The final bill has many parts, but accomplishes three main goals:

1. Invests in renewable energy by requiring Vermont utilities to supply 25% of our power from clean local sources by 2012;
2. Makes it easier for businesses and individuals to invest in small renewable energy projects;
3. Improves efficiency by tightening building codes and expanding the mandate and funding of Efficiency Vermont so they can help us use less heating oil as well as electricity.

All this is paid for by making Vermont Yankee pay the same property tax rate as wind farms will pay (VYcurrently pays less than 1/3rd as much).

And that’s where the controversy lies: Governor Douglas is opposed to the bill because it taxes Yankee. His opposition, combined with a massive PR and lobbying campaign by Vermont Yankee (remember the ad wars?) made the fight to pass the bill though our House a huge challenge. In the end we got 85 representatives to vote in favor.

But now the Governor is about to veto the bill. It’s outrageous, but he’s sticking up for the profit margins of Entergy instead of for a bill that will make Vermont more affordable, create jobs, and fight global warming.

But there’s good news: the legislature will reconvene on July 11th to override the governor’s veto. (click here to learn more) We have this one chance to get 2/3 of our legislature to do the right thing. If we win, Vermont will be the first state in the nation to stand up to the oil industry, the nuclear industry, and the big utilities and get serious about an economy driven by renewable and energy independence.