Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Did Coal Lobby CEO Lie Under Oath?

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Oct. 29, 2009 10:41 AM PDT

In testimony before Congress on Thursday, Steve Miller, CEO for American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a major coal industry lobby group, stated under oath that his organization "has never opposed the Waxman-Markey bill."

But ACCCE's previous statements indicate otherwise. On the day that the House passed the legislation, Miller himself issued a press release stating, "ACCCE cannot support this bill, as it is written because the legislation still does not adequately protect consumers and the domestic economy."

In addition, documents released Thursday by a congressional investigation into 13 forged letters sent to Congress by an ACCCE subcontractor show that ACCCE spent nearly $3 million this year on so-called grassroots efforts to persuade vulnerable legislators to vote against the Waxman-Markey bill. (Miller did tell the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming that ACCCE "supports federal carbon legislation that could include a mandatory cap-and-trade.")

An email exchange between ACCCE's contractor, the Hawthorn Group, and its subcontractor, Bonner and Associates, identifies seven House Democrats to be pressured to oppose the bill. The email describes Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.) as "a potential/probable 'no' vote on here so we're doing a little more intel to determine whether or not to keep him on our target list." The goal was clearly to convince members to vote against the measure. Once they were known to oppose it, they could be taken off the list.

Carney did indeed go on to vote against Waxman-Markey, along with five of the other targeted members. Yet ACCCE testified on Thursday that they did not actively campaign to get members to vote against the bill.

The coal industry group wasn't the only one making questionable claims in the hearing. Jack Bonner, head of Bonner and Associates—the ACCCE subcontractor that sent the forged letters—testified that his organization made a sincere effort to reach out to the community organizations whose names were misappropriated, as well as the lawmakers who received the forgeries. But the written and oral testimony from both Bonner and the community groups makes it clear that Bonner took its time. The Waxman-Markey vote was on June 26, and ACCCE, Bonner and Hawthorn all knew about the forgeries at least 48 hours before that. "Our immediate reaction to the fraud was to advise our client and reach out to the organizations," Bonner told Congress. Yet Bonner staffers didn't actually begin reaching out until June 29 (to one of the community organizations) and July 1 (to members of Congress). They didn't speak to the staff of two forgery recipients until July 13, and never contacted Carney's office at all. Lisa Maatz, director of public policy and government relations for the American Association of University Women, said she only learned about a fake letter bearing her organization's name by reading about it in the newspaper. Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy of the NAACP, said his group found out when contacted by the media.

By the end of Thursday's hearing, only Select Committee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wa.) were present to grill the witnesses. But they evidently weren't satisfied with the answers they received: After the hearing, Markey indicated that his committee will continue looking into the case.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Inside Bonner's Climate Letter Forgeries

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Oct. 29, 2009 6:30 AM PDT

Two weeks before the House voted on the historic Waxman-Markey climate bill, a number of key Democrats received letters purportedly from minority groups, urging them to oppose the legislation. The now infamous letters turned out to be forgeries generated by Bonner and Associates, a political consulting firm working on behalf of the coal industry. The story of exactly how the letters found their way to Congress has remained murky, and Bonner has repeatedly blamed the incident on a renegade temp. But documents released today by a congressional investigation and viewed by Mother Jones lift the lid on Bonner's inner workings—offering fresh evidence that deceptive tactics weren't an anomaly for the firm, but were built into its standard operating procedure.

The documents show that Bonner was officially hired on June 10 by the Hawthorn Group, a communications firm which had in turn been enlisted by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a coal industry lobby. The contract was verbal, according to material Bonner provided to the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. Nothing was committed to paper.

In an email to Bonner headed "Ready to Rumble," Hawthorn lists seven key Democratic targets it believed could be pressured to vote against the bill. Hawthorn also named specific interest groups it hoped would write letters opposing the legislation—especially organizations “representing the interests of veterans, senior citizens, minorities, and other groups," according to the documents. The email requests Bonner to produce five letters from such groups in the district of each targeted lawmaker.

The investigation offers a rare glimpse into Bonner's operations—and by extension the shadowy art of astroturfing. A sample script provided to Bonner employees directs them to mislead listeners about who they represent in order to rustle up letters. "Hi xyz, I am working with seniors/retirees to help stop their utility bills from doubling," reads one script. "Hi xyz, I am working with vets/veterans/veterans organizations to help stop their utility bills from doubling," reads another. As this longer extract shows, at no point do the scripts instruct the callers to reveal that they work for the coal industry:

I am working with seniors to stop an increase in their utility bills. Do you know any senior [sic] that are struggling to get by on Social Security? {wait for response} What would happen if their utility bill doubled? Would they not run the air-conditioner in the summer or not have heat in the winter? What else might they cut out of their budget to have electricity ... food ... medicine? I have a letter that other senior groups have wrote would you write a similar one (OR) would you sign a similar letter?

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

The Latest in the Bonner Forged Letters Controversy

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Oct. 28, 2009 6:33 PM PDT

Jack Bonner—head of controversial political consulting firm Bonner and Associates—and Steve Miller—the CEO of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity—have a lot of explaining to do on Thursday morning. That's when they're due to be grilled by the House Select Committee on Energy and Global Warming about the role their organizations played in the creation of forged letters urging representatives to vote against the Waxman-Markey climate bill in June. According to documents relating to the matter and viewed by Mother Jones, the hearing will likely shed new light on the inner workings of Bonner—and how it utilizes minority groups on behalf of its corporate clients.

So, in anticipation, a quick recap of what we know so far: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal front group, coordinated with contractors at the Hawthorn Group, a communications firm, and subcontractors at Bonner and Associates to generate letters and calls to Congress urging members not to support the climate bill. Those letters included at least 13 confirmed forgeries purporting to be from minority groups such as the NAACP, as well as seniors and veterans groups.

The three companies knew about the forgeries at least 48 hours before the House voted on the climate bill on June 26: Bonner notifiied Hawthorn, which alerted ACCCE on June 24. But no attempt was made to contact the three House members who received the fake letters until July 1, according to the documents. In fact, Bonner did not actually reach any member until July 13. (Two of the three recipients of the phony letters voted against the bill.)

ACCCE and Hawthorn have maintained that they expected Bonner to inform representatives, and were assured that the organization would do so. For its part, Bonner has blamed the whole affair on a temporary "rogue" employee.

But this version of events doesn't square with the company's standard protocol, former Bonner employees told Mother Jones. Generally, they say, the company employs fewer than 10 permanent staffers who oversee dozens of temps. The former employees note that had the organization's own standards been upheld, a permanent staffer would have been responsible for confirming that all letters sent to Congress were genuine.

We'll have much more on this on Thursday morning—the hearing starts at 9.30.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Now Baucus Wants to Mess With the Climate Bill

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Oct. 28, 2009 11:54 AM PDT

With Lindsey Graham offering support for climate legislation and other Republicans making sympathetic noises too, the prospects for a climate bill had been brightening recently. Or at least they were—until Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) made it clear on Tuesday that he won't vote for the Senate proposal in its current form.

Up until now, Baucus has been too preoccupied with health care reform to devote much time to climate issues. But his ability to gum up the works is significant. He's a member of Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works committee, which will mark up the bill and must approve the measure before it can be considered by the wider Senate. As chair of the Finance Committee, Baucus has also indicated that he plans to assert jurisdiction over how the bill allocates emissions permits.

In the health care debate, Baucus delayed the bill in the Finance Committee for months, watering it down in an effort to win the support of the panel's Republicans. In the end only one (Olympia Snowe) voted for it. Now, he's apparently proposing a similar process for the climate bill. "I support passing common-sense climate legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while protecting our economy. And the key word in that sentence is 'passing,'" said Baucus at the Environment and Public Works Committee's first hearing on the measure. He questioned whether the bill as written "will lead us closer to or further away" from that goal.

Boxer's committee was expected to pass the legislation with relatively little trouble—the panel is much more progressive on environmental matters than Rep. Henry Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee, which took the lead in the House. But now Baucus is arguing that a significant number of Senate moderates share his views—and wants to cater to their concerns before the bill even comes before other committees like the agriculture panel which are expected to water down its provisions. "We cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from an achievable consensus on common-sense climate change," Baucus said "We could build that consensus here in this committee. If we don't, we risk wasting another month, another year, another Congress, without taking a step forward into our future."

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Americans Support Cap and Trade After All?

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Oct. 28, 2009 8:55 AM PDT

As I noted last week, Americans seem to be more confused about the science of climate change than they used to be. But even if they're less sure whether global warming is occurring and if so, what causes it, they still support cap and trade, according to a CNN poll released yesterday.

The poll found that 60 percent of Americans favor legislation to cap emissions, a substantial increase in supporters. The last CNN poll on this subject in April found only 44 percent supportive of cap-and-trade, and 51 percent opposed. The number was even higher for younger adults—68 percent of Americans under age 50 back cap-and-trade." Seventy-five percent of Democrats support cap-and-trade, as do nearly six in 10 independents. Perhaps most surprising, even 40 percent of self-identified Republicans said they support the policy.

Last week I suggested that part of the problem is that Americans just don't understand climate policy, and the opponents of action have dominated the conversation. But this latest poll seems to indicate that Americans do support key climate policy goals—lower emissions, clean energy, less dependence on foreign energy—even if they're still confused about the science.

Either that, or it indicates that polls on the subject are not all that useful. But at least this one has positive results!