Challenge to All 2009 Virginia Candidates: Reject Dominion's Dirty Money!

by: Lowell

Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:23:45 AM EST

In all seriousness, Dominion Power is a big-time corporate bad actor (with big-time money to burn) influencing government policy to its own benefit, but NOT to everyone else's (certainly not to the environment's benefit, that's for sure). From writing and ramming through its own reregulation bill; to resisting mandatory renewable portfolio standards (26 states now have these, while 6 others - including Virginia - have "voluntary" RPS's); to pushing dirty, mountaintop-removing, coal-fired power; to constantly pushing the lying lie that energy efficiency and clean renewables are not sufficient to meet Virginia's energy needs; to richly earning the mock slogan, "Dominion: Global Warming Starts Here," Dominion Power is pretty much the worst of the worst.

You'd never know any of this, of course, if you only read the corporate, print media (where Dominion places expensive, full-page advertisements). You'd never know any of this if you only watched Dominion's propagandistic, faux-warm-and-fuzzy TV ads.  And you'd certainly never know any of this if you only looked at the pro-Dominion voting patterns of many Virginia politicians.  

How does Dominion spread its (false) narrative and distract peoples' attentions from the true (but not so flattering) story? The answer is very simple: MONEY, and lots of it. In fact, according to VPAP, since 2005, Dominion has given nearly $2.5 million to Virginia state politicians, Democratic and Republican alike.

Why does Dominion spend all this money?  Obviously, it's not out of any altruism on the company's part. I mean, let's get real here; if Dominion's exec's really had wanted to be altruistic, they could have given that $2.5 million to help poor families weatherize their homes or to help working people reduce their energy expenditures (e.g., by subsidizing the purchase of energy efficient appliances). They could have spent some of that money promoting green building standards. They could have pumped that money into health care for poor communities in coal-mining regions of the Commonwealth. Etc., etc.  

But, of course, Dominion CEO Thomas Farrell and Company haven't done any of that. Instead, they've used their money to buy what really matters to them: political clout in Richmond's halls of power, used to "persuade" lawmakers to do Dominion's bidding, time and time again.

Well, here we are in the year 2009, with the ice caps melting, with 90% of scientists agreeing that temperatures are rising (and 97% of climatologists agreeing that mankind is playing a role in causing that to take place), and with a major breath of fresh air having come to Washington.

Today, it's time for change - voters just finished sending a huge message that this is exactly what they want - in a big way. That's why I'm challenging all Virginia 2009 candidates to "just say no" to Dominion's dirty money. Refuse it. Reject it. Return it. Just don't take any money from Dominion Power.

A few thoughts. First, I'm all for politicians refusing money from any individual or corporation or other entity that fails to live up to a certain level of ethical, moral, or legal standards. How many politicians are still receiving money from Jack Abramoff? Not many, huh?  Fascinating.  Yet politicians still take money from other lobbyists.  Hey, what happened to the "slippery slope?" :)

Second, "slippery slope" is really what's known as a logical fallacy, "in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question." In fact, "there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim."

Third, I strongly suspect that "slippery slope" is simply an excuse for people who don't want to (or are afraid to) do anything anyway.  Thus, we get the "oh my god, if I say no to Dominion, I'll have to say no to Smithfield and Altria and Walmart and...next thing you know, I won't have any money at all and I'll lose my election!!!"  Of course, that ignores the fact that increasing amounts of money are flowing to political campaigns through small donations (e.g., Barack Obama raised more than $500 million online from 3 million individual donors during his run for president in 2007/2008). It also ignores the fact that politicians are perfectly capable of saying "no" to one type of company and not to another, to draw "red lines" that he or she personally finds intolerable, and to explain why. Thus, I wouldn't expect a "pro-life" Republican to be taking money from abortion providers. I wouldn't expect a "peace" candidate to be taking money from Halliburton or Blackwater. And I wouldn't expect an pro-environment candidate in Virginia to be taking money from Dominion Power.

Fourth, politicians might want to consider the possibility of receiving major kudos, "earned media," grassroots support, and ultimately votes, from taking a courageous stance against a powerful corporation.

Finally, the "slippery slope" counterargument ignores the value of symbolic gestures, such as divestment from South Africa to protest apartheid or pressure on other corporate bad actors to change their ways.  For those who don't believe that corporations will respond to pressure on environmental, human rights, labor, animal welfare or other issues, I would point you to the example of Wal-Mart and child labor in Uzbekistan or to the fast food industry and animal welfare.

Yes, it happens all the time. And it can happen here in Virginia too on the environment if some brave politician will just be the first to stand up there and say "no" to Dominion's dirty money. So...who will that brave soul be?