Politics Plus

It saddens me greatly to report this.

An oil spill that threatened to eclipse even the Exxon Valdez disaster spread out of control and drifted inexorably toward the Gulf Coast on Thursday as fishermen rushed to scoop up shrimp and crews spread floating barriers around marshes.

The spill was both bigger and closer than imagined — five times larger than first estimated, with the leading edge just three miles from the Louisiana shore. Authorities said it could reach the Mississippi River delta by Thursday night.

"It is of grave concern," David Kennedy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Associated Press. "I am frightened. This is a very, very big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just mind-boggling."

The oil slick could become the nation’s worst environmental disaster in decades, threatening hundreds of species of fish, birds and other wildlife along the Gulf Coast, one of the world’s richest seafood grounds, teeming with shrimp, oysters and other marine life.

The leak from the ocean floor proved to be far bigger than initially reported, contributing to a growing sense among many in Louisiana that the government failed them again, just as it did during Hurricane Katrina. President Barack Obama dispatched Cabinet officials to deal with the crisis.

Cade Thomas, a fishing guide in Venice, worried that his livelihood will be destroyed. He said he did not know whether to blame the Coast Guard, the federal government or oil company BP PLC.

"They lied to us. They came out and said it was leaking 1,000 barrels when I think they knew it was more. And they weren’t proactive," he said. "As soon as it blew up, they should have started wrapping it with booms."

The Coast Guard worked with BP, which operated the oil rig that exploded and sank last week, to deploy floating booms, skimmers and chemical dispersants, and set controlled fires to burn the oil off the water’s surface.

The Coast Guard urged the company to formally request more resources from the Defense Department. A BP executive said the corporation would "take help from anyone."

Government officials said the blown-out well 40 miles offshore is spewing five times as much oil into the water as originally estimated — about 5,000 barrels, or 200,000 gallons, a day.

At that rate, the spill could easily eclipse the worst oil spill in U.S. history — the 11 million gallons that leaked from the grounded tanker Exxon Valdez in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989 — in the three months it could take to drill a relief well and plug the gushing well 5,000 feet underwater on the sea floor.

Ultimately, the spill could grow much larger than the Valdez because Gulf of Mexico wells typically hold many times more oil than a single tanker… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

What now? Spill Baby Spill?  BP is responsible. They have to pay for it.  But the blame goes beyond BP:

.

.

.

Senate Democrats have introduced a Bill to mitigate the effects od the Extreme Court’s anti-democratic, corporatist decision.

Last week Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen previewed their legislative response to the Citizens United ruling. Today, Schumer along with Sens. Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Evan Bayh, and Al Franken announced the details of the new legislation, with their stated goal of the Senate passing the new measure by July 4 so the law can take effect in time for the 2010 midterm elections. Van Hollen is expected to introduce the House companion bill today.

The legislation is dubbed the "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections" Act, or The DISCLOSE Act (pity the intern who had to come up with that acronym). From the e-mailed press release:

The legislation is a response to the Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case last January. That decision overturned a decades-old law banning political expenditures by corporate interests. The new Senate legislation would partly restore those limits – by barring foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance from making political expenditures – and also require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads….

Under the senators’ proposal, the heads of any organization sponsoring an ad—including corporate CEOs—would be required to appear during the ad, as is currently required of candidates for federal office. In cases where special interests funnel their money into shell groups, the top five organizations that have donated to the group would have to be identified on screen during any ad sponsored by that group. The CEO of the group’s top funder for that particular advertisement would also be required to appear on screen to deliver a "stand by your ad" disclaimer.

Also, the bill would effectively require, for the first time, all corporations and advocacy groups that make political expenditures to establish easy-to-track campaign accounts. All donations to these accounts that exceed $1,000—as well as all expenditures funded through these accounts—would be reported within 24 hours to the Federal Election Commission once the money is spent, as well as to the public on the organization’s website, and to company shareholders in their corporate filing statements. If a company or organization did not wish to establish these transparent accounts, it would be required to disclose all its donors, not just those whose contributions are earmarked for political activities.

The legislation will also strengthen a candidate’s ability to respond to corporate attack ads by ensuring they can purchase air time at the lowest possible rate in the same media markets where these attacks ads are airing.  The bill would also make sure that private corporations don’t coordinate their political activities with candidates.

President Obama responded with a strong statement in support.

"I welcome the introduction of this strong bi-partisan legislation to control the flood of special interest money into America’s elections. Powerful special interests and their lobbyists should not be able to drown out the voices of the American people. Yet they work ceaselessly toward that goal: they claim the protection of the Constitution in extending this power, and they exploit every loophole in the law to escape limits on their activities. The legislation introduced today would establish the toughest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by big oil corporations, Wall Street and other special interests, so the American people can follow the money and see clearly which special interests are funding political campaign activity and trying to buy representation in our government. I have long believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this legislation will shine an unprecedented light on corporate spending in political campaigns. This bill will also prohibit foreign entities from manipulating the outcomes of American elections and help close other special interest loopholes….

The legislation doesn’t truly fix Citizens United, which would take a Constitutional amendment or another ruling… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Though most welcome, this does little to help.  The best solution is to keep the GOP out of the white house until the last rabid reactionary ideologue had retired from the Court.

I was pleased, an pleasantly surprised to see Harry Reid show enough spine to actually make the GOP pay a political price for selling Main Street short in favor of their Wall Street Cronies.

Senate Republicans agreed Wednesday to drop their three-day effort to block debate on historic legislation to overhaul the nation’s financial regulatory system after efforts to craft a bipartisan agreement ended with Republicans winning few concessions.

There was no formal vote on the move to begin debate, which was agreed to when Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada late Wednesday asked for unanimous consent of the Senate and there was no objection. The Senate had failed on three earlier efforts to begin debate in the face of unanimous Republican objection.

The Senate should take about a month to work through the legislation, and if it passes, it will have to be reconciled with a different version that the House of Representatives passed last year. Then each chamber must pass identical versions before President Barack Obama could sign it into law, which is unlikely before July.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., promised a Senate debate that would allow time for all points of view. “It is time for debate to begin,” he said, “and it must be a serious, vigorous debate.”…

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

Rachel Maddow has a pointed and humorous explanation:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

One thing is clear.  All the caving-in Reid and Senate Democrats have done in the last eighteen months has been a waste of time and effort.