Congressman Ackerman sent a response to this letter via email on February 7, 2011.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about global warming. I am happy to share my views with you on this very important issue.

I believe global warming is one of the most serious threats facing our nation and our planet. The evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming and, despite the claims of some politically motivated commentators and pundits, climatologists nearly unanimously agree that the earth is warming, that man is having a significant impact on this trend, and that there will be major consequences if it continues.

The implications of these findings are dire. Over half of the United States’ population lives in costal regions; an ocean rise precipitated by increasing global temperatures could have catastrophic effects in these communities. Moreover, numerous sectors of our economy depend on a stable climate. Our agriculture, fishing, and tourism industries—along with many others—rely heavily on consistent seasons and temperatures. Climate change could cause major financial losses in these areas and do serious damage to our economy.

The only response to this looming crisis is to proactively reduce carbon emissions and invest in alternative energy technologies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1, signed into law by President Obama two years ago, took important and unprecedented steps towards investing in alternative energies and the “green” economy. In addition, on June 26th, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which, for the first time in our nation’s history, would limit America’s carbon emissions and put our nation on the path to a sustainable future.

Unfortunately, this important legislation died when Republicans blocked its consideration in the Senate. Now, they threaten to roll back the crucial—if limited—progress that the Environmental Protection Agency has made toward curbing emissions through the authority granted in the Clean Air Act. Rest assured that I will continue to oppose these efforts, and work for strong environmental protections and stringent clean air standards

I thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I hope you will continue to share your concerns and suggestions with me.

I mailed this letter to Congressman Ackerman on January 3, 2011. I received a response via email on January 25, 2011.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act, H.R. 5652. Like you, I firmly believe in a woman’s right to access sound and medically accurate information when making reproductive-health decisions.

If enacted, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act would direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate and enforce rules that prohibit crisis-pregnancy centers from deceptively advertising abortion services and providing inaccurate information about the physical and psychological risks and repercussions of abortion. This legislation seeks to prevent crisis-pregnancy centers from using misinformation and deceit as tools of persuasion.

My own view is that a woman has the right to make the choice to have an abortion privately, with the advice from objective medical professionals, her family, and her religious and personal advisors. It is critical that women have the most accurate information during this difficult decision-making process. I’m troubled by reports that certain crisis-pregnancy centers falsely advertise abortion services and provide untruthful information about reproductive health-care with the intention of manipulation. Should this legislation reach the floor during the 112th Congress, you can count on my support.

I appreciate your interest in this extremely sensitive issue. I hope that you will continue to share your views and concerns with me.

Sincerely

GARY L. ACKERMAN
Member of Congress

A little over a year ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled in what is now known as the Citizens United case.

The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An “electioneering communication” was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

In other words, corporations have no limit on the amount of money they may spend on advertisements in political campaign. In addition, they do not have to state their identity in the advertisements, so the public has no way of knowing who is paying for them.

This gives corporations even more power over our government with no recourse for Americans who want to know who is influencing candidates and few options for those who want to make their voice heard.

There are several courses of action being taken to remedy this unjust ruling.

In the United States Congress, the DISCLOSE Act would

Require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

This bill passed the House of Representatives in 2010, but failed to pass in the Senate. If it is to become law, it must be reintroduced in the House.

Others have attempted to amend the Constitution. An amendment was introduced to Congress last year, and although none have been introduced to State Legislatures, I hope it is only a matter of time.

This week, I will be writing to my Representative and Senators about the DISCLOSE Act and a Constitutional Amendment, and also to my State Assemblyman and State Senator about the introduction of a Constitutional Amendment. This link provides more information about contacting your State Legislature.

This letter is modified from the one at Motion to Amend.

I am writing to you today because action must be taken to remedy the grave injustice caused by the Supreme Court’s Ruling in the Citizens United Case. I strongly urge you to support a reintroduction and passage of the DISCLOSE Act.

In addition, I would strongly support a Constitutional Amendment that would
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

For my letter to my State Legislature, I will simply remove the sentence about the DISCLOSE Act.

Further Reading.

The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants. In addition to an initial list of pollutants, the Administrator of the EPA must periodically review it and add any new substances found to be hazardous. The EPA has decided to classify greenhouse gas emissions as hazardous air pollutants because of the role they play in climate change. This was in direct response to a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2007 which declared that they must make a decision on the matter. Now, the new Republican Congress has decided to take action to remove this authority from the EPA. The specific bill is HR 391, and was introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee and currently has 154 co-sponsors. Since the previous Congress (and all previous Congresses) failed to pass comprehensive legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, we cannot stand idly by while the EPA is rendered useless to deal with the problem.

The EPA’s course of action will not be to implement a cap and trade system, although that would be ideal, and a precedent has been set by some states and other countries. However, we must not let better be the enemy of the good. The effects of climate change grow exponentially and will have disastrous consequences, and so we must take any action we can to mitigate it.

The argument against EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is weak. Aside from straight up climate change denial are arguments that this will harm the economy and that it is an overstep of government authority.

While some industries like coal or oil will experience setbacks, we should not let this stand in the way of protecting not only the existence of human life on earth, but its quality in terms of health and the peace and stability of nations. Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will create an incentive for new technological innovations – to either abate pollution or to create clean, non-polluting energy sources. This will boost the economy. As standards tighten and industries strive to meet them this will become more apparent. For example, if such a thing as “clean coal” exists then this will be a boon for it.

Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is not an overstep of government authority. As mentioned previously, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA may regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and they have also upheld the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act itself. Finally, one may question the validity of the existence of Environmental Protection Agency – but the reason we need it is clear – the problems addressed by the EPA may also be addressed by state and local governments, but since pollution knows no boundaries it is best assessed at as broad a scope as possible. President Richard Nixon wrote of the creation of the EPA:

Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action.

Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness.

Many agency missions, for example, are designed primarily along media lines–air, water, and land. Yet the sources of air, water, and land pollution are interrelated and often interchangeable. A single source may pollute the air with smoke and chemicals, the land with solid wastes, and a river or lake with chemical and other wastes. Control of the air pollution may produce more solid wastes, which then pollute the land or water. Control of the water-polluting effluent may convert it into solid wastes, which must be disposed of on land.

Similarly, some pollutants–chemicals, radiation, pesticides–appear in all media. Successful control of them at present requires the coordinated efforts of a variety of separate agencies and departments. The results are not always successful.

I will be sending the following letter to my Congressional Representative and both of my Senators.

Global climate change is a serious issue which has the potential to negatively impact every person on Earth. It is for this reason that I am writing to you today. I urge you to take all actions you can to oppose HR 391 and ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency retain its authority to regulate greenhouse has emissions.

Crisis pregnancy centers claim they exist to provide alternatives to abortion. At best, they can provide an adoption referral or offer a teddy bear and a few packs of diapers and formula for a pregnant woman too poor to afford them. At worst, they lie to make women think they aren’t as far along as they are – so they can run out the clock on how much time a woman has before she cannot have an abortion. Abortions get more expensive as time goes on, and it becomes more difficult to find a provider. They spread other misinformation like claiming there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, or that it often causes infertility or mental health problems.

If these organizations exist to convince people to “choose life” why would they advertise themselves to confuse people into thinking that they are an abortion provider? Many call themselves “clinics” when there are no doctors or nurses on staff, and some will list their centers under “Abortion Services” in the telephone book. Several states and local governments have passed ordinances like the agreement reached in New York, where centers are obligated to inform clients that the center does not provide abortion or birth control, that it is not a licensed medical facility, and that the pregnancy tests it provides are over-the-counter. Other centers have been forced to do the same via court order.

H.R. 5652, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act would put an end to these unfair practices. It’s sponsored by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and has 36 co-sponsors.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the bill:

Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to: (1) promulgate rules prohibiting, as unfair and deceptive acts or practices, persons from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such persons provide abortion services if such persons do not provide such services; and (2) enforce violations of such rules as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. Read the rest of this entry »

I mailed this letter to Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) on December 28, 2010. I received this response (via email) on January 10. Kudos to him and his staff for keeping good records (I did not include my email address in my letter but I have sent him emails before on issues that included my home address as proof I was a constituent.)

I am posting this because I want to encourage others to write to their members of Congress – you might get a response! Also, I wanted to acknowledge Congressman Ackerman for his fast response and highlight his position on Net Neutrality.

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about government regulation of the internet. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this important issue.

The internet has transformed the way we communicate and share knowledge; it has spread information, spurred innovation, and connected the world in ways that were inconceivable just over a decade ago. Like no other advancement in history, the internet has become an indispensible ingredient of our education, our culture, and our democracy.

To ensure continued access to, and increased content on, the internet, it is absolutely essential that the flow of information over the internet is kept free. Unfortunately, under current law, internet providers are able to restrict the flow of online content that competes with the other services they offer. For example, this past summer, one national company began charging their customers based on bandwidth usage, limiting users’ ability to stream videos. Another large provider was recently exposed for restricting the connection speed of any users engaging in file sharing.

Fortunately, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has proposed regulation codifying six principles of so-called “net neutrality” to ensure that the internet remains an open forum over which information and ideas are spread free of discrimination. The proposed regulation would forbid providers from giving preference to certain types of material and force them to disclose any restrictions they place on their customers’ online usage. I strongly support the administration’s continuing efforts to promote net neutrality and internet freedom and will continue to advocate for its implementation.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Of course, if I can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely

GARY L. ACKERMAN
Member of Congress

As a supporter of Civil Liberties, a baseball fan, and an American with Latino heritage, I am very interested in the controversy over this years Major League Baseball All Star Game. It’s scheduled to take place in Phoenix, Arizona. Activists opposed to Arizona’s immigration law which requires people to prove they are not “illegal immigrants” have called for a boycott of the state. Thus began “Move The Game” an organization dedicated to convince baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to move the All Star Game out of Arizona.

The intersection of sports and politics has always fascinated me. Desegregation, the Olympics, the growing popularity of women’s sports and other events show that what’s happening in the world is often reflected on the field. I outright reject any argument that a boycott of the ASG should it not be moved, or other political actions are illegitimate simply because they have to so with sports.

There is a precedent for Arizona and sports impacting the broader political discussion. In 1987, after the newly-elected governor rescinded the Martin Luther King holiday for Arizona, the NFL voted to move the Super Bowl from Arizona to the Rose Bowl in California. After Arizona voted to restore MLK day as a holiday, the NFL finally chose to host the Super Bowl in Phoenix.

I do not know if this movement will be successful, their web-page has not been updated since September. However, Spring Training is on the horizon (less than a month!) and I hope that more will be done.

I will be sending the following letter to Bud Selig, at his office address:
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY Zip Code 10167

It is modified from the suggested letter on the Move the Game Website:

I have been a baseball fan since I was a little girl. My father taught me to play catch and all about the rules of baseball. It was one of the first things we bonded over and a love of the game is a special part of our relationship even now that I am an adult. He’s a proud American citizen, a veteran and also an immigrant. My dad came to this country as a child from Colombia.

I was shocked and angered when I heard that the state of Arizona passed SB 1070. I am opposed to racial profiling, especially that of American citizens like my father who, despite their service to our country might be singled out unfairly because of their appearance. It is for this reason that I fully support the Boycott Arizona movement and the Move the Game movement – to attempt to convince you, Mr. Commissioner to move the 2011 All Star Game anywhere outside of Arizona.

Arizona’s extreme immigration law is an invitation to racial profiling and harassment of Arizona residents and anybody who visits the state, including MLB players, an large number of whom are Latino or Black, their families and fans, an equally large number of whom are people of color and upstanding Americans.

Baseball is America’s National Pastime. It’s estimated the All-Star Game could bring as much as $60 million to the host region. Arizona doesn’t deserve to profit from discrimination and to host one of the great annual sporting events with your consent. Do what’s best for baseball and move the 2011 All-Star Game unless Arizona changes its harmful and hateful immigration law.

I have shared this letter on my blog, and via other social media on the internet and encouraged my friends, family and contacts to send you similar letters. I hope that we will convince you.

Letter writing Sunday is a meme I saw on Vegankid‘s (now seemingly defunct) blog a few years ago. The idea is to write a letter every Sunday “of social importance.” It could be to a Member of Congress, state or local government or to a corporation about an important issue. It’s something I’ve always wanted to make a habit, and so every time I write such a letter I will cross-post it here and encourage others to do the same.

Net Neutrality means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat all content the same. Such a policy is fair to everyone and keeps the internet a place where innovation and free speech can thrive. Activists like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have been urging the government to take action and codify this policy into law or as an official FCC rule. The reasoning is that if this is not done, ISPs could charge more for some types of content than others or even ban some websites. For example, if you get your cable television and high speed internet from Comcast, they may decide that you have to pay more to stream movies from Netflix because Netflix service directly competes with Comcast’s on demand service.

The fear is that since there are so few ISPs and in many areas of the United States only one to choose from, they could use their power to do more than further their own economic interests. What if they charged more to access websites about political ideas they didn’t like? Or banned religious or other content they found objectionable? The flip side of the coin is that some websites could pay the ISPs for their pages to load faster. So if you wanted to order a book from that neat independent bookstore online, it might load slower than Barnes&Noble or Borders. Or what if Rupert Murdoch paid for Fox News to load faster than any other news websites? This type of scheme would undermine the freedom we have on the internet today for ideas to compete on an even playing field. Considering that right now most media companies including television, radio and publishing are owned by only six firms in the United States, making the internet a place where everyone could not equally participate would be a serious detriment to free speech.

I have read the arguments against Net Neutrality. The can be summed up as follows: The internet is not broken, and so we should not fix it. Any attempt to codify net neutrality is a power grab by big government to intrude into our lives and therefore unacceptable. It is a detriment to the free market.

The first point, that making Net Neutrality the law is a power grab is not true. It would be enshrining into law the policy that has allowed the internet to grow over the past decades. We would simply be preserving the status quo. Secondly, Net Neutrality enhances the free market. One of the central tenets of capitalism is that there be low barriers to entry. Allowing some players to pay for more and better access would create an unreasonable barrier to entry for new start-ups. Also, the internet improves the free market in real life by giving consumers more information about the goods and services that are available. Allowing big companies to have better access than smaller ones would create an externality.

The FCC has recently created rules about Net Neutrality. They are a half-measure full of loopholes and are the same rules that telecom companies have been lobbying for.

It is for these reasons that I will be sending the following letter to my Congressional Representative and both of my Senators:

I am writing to you today to ask you to take action and support Net Neutrality. I urge you to support Internet Freedom Preservation Act should it be reintroduced to Congress. The FCC’s recent rules do not go far enough to ensure free speech and fair competition on the internet. Please take a stand for this important cause.

For further reading:
How to file a complaint with the FCC
On McIlheran’s disastrously simplistic opposition to “net neutrality”
Steve Wozniak to the FCC: Keep the Internet Free
The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time by Senator Al Franken
Save The Internet