Apparently shareholders at both Exxon and Chevron are preparing resolutions that would tell both corporations to move away from fossil fuels. That's not an absurd proposition -- no law of physics compels energy corporations to develop their energy from non-renewable sources if renewable alternatives exist; only the weight of decades of development, and of hard-to-kill paradigms, compel that. As you know, shareholder resolutions can work even if they come nowhere close to winning: even a resolution that wins one out of four votes signals to executives that one out of every four shareholders might be willing to dump their stock if things don't turn around, and no executive wants that to happen on their watch. So why don't we hear more about shareholder resolutions like these? Partly because we're not likely to have money to throw around buying voting stock in numerous corporations (though if you have a pension fund, you likely are invested in these corporations), but mainly because executives really, really, really hate them, for the reason described above. But Exxon and Chevron are having their annual general meetings in just a few days, so the time is right to strike. Vote Your Pension helps you tell Exxon and Chevron to move away from fossil fuels and into renewables.
Meanwhile, S. 2807, the so-called Preserving Public Access to Public Waters Act, would essentially give states veto power over certain "recreational or commercial fishing" restrictions at national parks. You may well be thinking, what's wrong with giving your grandfather more right to go fishing in public lands? But you should ask yourself why S. 2807 also specifies commercial fishing. Turns out S. 2807 doesn't tell you why we have fishing restrictions in the first place: to help vulnerable marine populations rebuild. And if states get veto power over these federal regulations, more development will move in, which means vulnerable ecosystems will crumble. In other words, this ain't about grandpa -- it's about unscrupulous corporate actors who look at national parks and only see money they could have made. I'll brook none of this "states always know better" silliness, either -- giving states power over what happens on federal property located within those states is an absurd proposition, and state political officials are more vulnerable to being, ah, influenced by local unscrupulous actors. CREDO helps you tell your Congressfolk to reject S. 2807, and ensure that our federal government continues to make necessary decisions about national parks.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell your Pennsylvania state legislator to support HB 1835/SB 484, which would create an independent redistricting commission in the Commonwealth, then Common Cause still helps you do that. Pennsylvania conducted its primaries at the end of last month, but too many good Pennsylvanians still get general elections with only one candidate running unopposed, which is about as pure an opposite of "choice" as you can get. Even with all the gerrymandering going on in America, Pennsylvania still exceeds the national average for unopposed legislative elections by almost 20 percent! How can the people ever get what they deserve from their government if their elected officials are never looking over their shoulder at the popular will? The only people who want legislative elections to be predictable are the people already in power, and how popular are they again? Especially in Pennsylvania, where the election of a Democratic Governor has apparently completely paralyzed the legislature's ability to produce a budget that doesn't show good Pennsylvanians the back of their government's hand? The power of the few is never more important than the power of the many.