July 25, 2005

LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS

Fighting To Protect Endangered … Democrats

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

“The LCV’s scorecard betrays LCV’s liberalism and seems to be designed to provide high ‘environmental’ scores to liberal elected officials and lower ones to moderates and conservatives, regardless of their votes on the full range of environmental issues.”  (The National Center For Public Policy Research Website, www.nationalcenter.org, Accessed 6/19/03)

 

LCV: PARTISAN LIBERAL EXTREMIST GROUP

 

The Resume Of LCV’s Current President, Deb Callahan, Contains An Impressive List Of Liberal Employers.  Callahan worked on Democrat Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign in 1984, was deputy campaign manager for Senator Kent Conrad (D-MT) in 1986, and served as national field coordinator for Al Gore’s 1988 presidential bid.  (The National Center For Public Policy Research Website, www.nationalcenter.org, Accessed 6/19/03; League Of Conservation Voters Website, www.lcv.org, Accessed 6/19/03)

 

In 1991, Former LCV President (And Former Clinton Interior Secretary) Bruce Babbitt Summed Up The LCV’s Hit Squad Mission While Introducing Its Environmental Scorecards:  “We Must Identify Our Enemies And Drive Them Into Oblivion.” (The National Center For Public Policy Research Website, www.nationalcenter.org, Accessed 6/19/03)

 

In An Op-Ed Titled “Eco-Votes May Not Preserve GOP,” LCV President Deb Callahan Expressed Her Sour-Grapes Thoughts On The 1994 Republican Influx.  “In 1994 voters turned out a striking number of incumbents and changed leadership in both houses. Anti-environmentalists ascended to committee chairmanships backed by a virulently anti-regulatory freshman class. … We need to change the members of Congress. This November we will elect the best and defeat the worst. Only a new election, the 1996 election, can turn the tide.”  (Deb Callahan, “Eco-Votes May Not Preserve GOP,” The Hill, 3/6/96)

 

Callahan Repeated The Anti-GOP Sentiments Closer To The 1996 Elections.  “‘Never before has there been a Congress so extreme, so out of step with Americans, who want stronger environmental protections, not weaker ones,’ the league’s president, Deb Callahan, said of the Republican-controlled Congress.”  (Bob Downing, “Ecology Group Gives Sawyer Top Vote Grade,” Akron Beacon Journal [Ohio], 10/11/96)

 

The LCV Readily Criticizes Voluntary, State- And Economy-Friendly Approaches That Promote Cooperation In Favor Of Punitive Regulatory Schemes.  The “LCV criticized the [2000 pre-primary] field of Republican candidates for advocating more voluntary and state and local-level environmental initiatives, while subjecting new environmental regulations to stricter economic criteria, such as cost/benefit analyses.”  (“Greens Slam Bush’s Environmental Record, Laud Gore And Bradley,” Octane Week, 1/24/00)

 

LCV Senior Vice President For Political Affairs Mark Longabaugh Also Has Long History With Democrats.

 

P      Longabaugh Managed Massachusetts Gubernatorial Primary Campaign For Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich In 2002, Served As Ohio State Director For Clinton-Gore In 1992, Was New Hampshire State Director For Dick Gephardt In 1988, And Managed Fall Campaign In Missouri For Dukakis-Bentsen In 1988.  (League of Conservation Voters, Release, 06/03/03)

 

P      He Served As Bill Bradley’s Chief Attack Dog Against Al Gore In 2000. (“His Early Promise Vanished, Bradley Plans to Quit Today,” The New York Times, 3/9/00)

 

 

LCV LAUNCHES VICIOUS ATTACK ADS AGAINST GOP CANDIDATES

 

During 2002 Cycle, LCV Launched $500,000 Attack Ad On Former Rep. John Thune (R-SD) During Senate Campaign Against Incumbent Democrat Tim Johnson.  (Dave Boyer, “Conservation Group Attacks Challenger In S. Dakota Race,” The Washington Times, 6/9/02)

 

LCV President Deb Callahan Had Difficulty Defending Ad When Confronted About Its Claims.  Sean Hannity: Two points here.”  Deb Callahan: “... [Thune] voted for arsenic in water.”  Hannity: “Your ad is deceptive in two didn’t [sic] areas here. Number one, there were two specific votes, not buried in a 50-page $84 billion bill, which is what your ad is referring to, two occasions ...” Callahan: “And what he’s talking about ...”  Hannity: “... two -- wait a minute, let me finish. Two occasions where he voted the opposite way. You did not include that in your ad. Isn’t that unfair that you didn’t tell the whole story? Shouldn’t you have put that in the ad? You’re purposefully trying to hurt this guy because you don’t like his politics.” Callahan: “I’ll tell you, we are purposefully trying to raise this ...” Hannity: “Because you don’t like his politics ...” Callahan: “... issue because we have certainly stimulated an important debate.”  (Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes,” 6/10/02)

 

Other Republican LCV Ad Victims Include Former Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-NC), Who Lost To John Edwards (D-NC) In 1998, And Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Who Lost To Harry Reid (D-NV) In 1998, But Won An Open Seat In 2000. (Dave Boyer, “Conservation Group Attacks Challenger In S. Dakota Race,” The Washington Times, 6/9/02; Valerie Richardson, “Nevada’s Boom Could Be Bust For Reid,” The Washington Times, 10/21/98)

 

AND PRODUCES THE PARTISAN “DIRTY DOZEN” LIST

 

LCV Says List Targets “Democrats, Republicans And Independents Alike …”  “Through the Dirty Dozen campaigns, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Action Fund works to rid Congress of Representatives and Senators -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike -- who consistently vote against the environment. Each election cycle, we strategically target vulnerable anti-environment candidates and launch campaigns to educate voters about their voting record.”  (League Of Conservation Voters Website, www.lcv.org, Accessed 6/19/03)

 

“Strategically Target,” Indeed. A Token Democrat, Rep. Ken Lucas (D-KY), Made The LCV’s 2002 Dirty Dozen List.  (League Of Conservation Voters Website, www.lcv.org, Accessed 6/19/03)

 

The 2000 List Was No Different – Another Token Democrat … Named James Traficant (D-OH). (Cathy Wilfong, “Conservation League Backs Cleland, Lists Chambliss Among ‘Dirty Dozen’,” Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/21/02; “Campaign 2000 Ii: LCV 'Environmental Champions' Emerge Victorious,” Greenwire, 11/10/00)

 

LCV FAVORS DEMOCRATS OVER GOP IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

 

A Breakdown Of Campaign Contributions Made By The League Of Conservation Voters Action Fund Shows A Definite Democrat Slant.  Over the past three election cycles, LCV has contributed $203,845 (72%) to Congressional and Senate Democrat candidates, as opposed to $80,778 (28%) to Republicans.  (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/03)

 

P      During the 2002 cycle, LCV contributed a total of $86,787 (69%) to Congressional and Senate Democrat

candidates, and a paltry $38,228 (31%) to Republicans. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/03)

 

P      During the 2000 cycle, the LVC contributed a total of $63,179 (71%) to Congressional and Senate Democrat candidates, and a meager $25,503 (29%) to Republicans. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/03)

 

P      During the 1998 cycle, the LCV contributed a total of $53,879 (76%) to Congressional and Senate Democrat candidates, and a fraction, only $17,047 (24%), to Republicans.  (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/03)

 

Since 1999, LCV Has Spent Over $2.4 Million In Independent Expenditures - TV Ads And Direct Mail - Advocating The Defeat Of Republican Candidates.  This Compares With Only $42,450 Spent By LCV Against Democrat Candidates.  (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/03)

 

The LCV’s California Affiliate Follows Its Larger Brother’s Lead … And Expands On It.  During the 2002 cycle, the California chapter of the LCV contributed $20,750 Democrat candidates, while offering $3,000 to Republican candidate William Kirby.  During the previous cycle, the CA LCV contributed $30,046 to Democrats and nothing to Republicans.  Finally, in 1998, the CA LCV gave $31,163 to Democrats, and yet again, Republicans were ignored.  (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/03)

 

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP AND WH CANDIDATES RECEIVED AVERAGE SCORE OF “85”

 

 

THE LCV DEVOTES ATTENTION TO EXTRANEOUS LIBERAL CAUSES …

 

“League Of Conservation Voters Scorecard Ignores Important Environmental Votes, But Includes Abortion And Campaign Finance Reform.”  The League Of Conservation Voters (LCV) likes to score members of Congress on what they deem to be “pro-environmental” votes.  However, in 2001, the LCV includes votes on abortion and campaign finance, hardly the most important “environmental” votes of our times.  (The National Center For Public Policy Research Website, www.nationalcenter.org, Accessed 6/19/03; League Of Conservation Voters Website, www.lcv.org, Accessed 6/19/03)

 

The League Of Conservation Voters, Under The Guise Of Promoting A Cleaner Environment, Actually Promotes Abortion.  The LCV believes “[r]apid population growth, which exacerbates pollution and accelerates the depletion of natural resources, is one of the most serious threats to a healthy, sustainable environment.”  Its criticism is focused on the restriction of U.S. funds (under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush) for international “voluntary family planning programs.” (League Of Conservation Voters, “2001 National Environmental Scorecard,” 2/02)

 

BUT IGNORES CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL VOTES

 

The League Of Conservation Voters Refused To Treat Brownfield Revitalization And Salmon Recovery As Environmental Key Votes In 2001.  According The National Center For Public Policy Research, “[i]mportant environmental votes ignored in the scorecard included Brownfields revitalization, which allows for economic development in predominately minority neighborhoods through the cleanup of polluted urban industrial sites, and the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act.”  (The National Center For Public Policy Research Website, www.nationalcenter.org, Accessed 6/19/03)

 

Selective Treatment Of Environmental Votes Produces Democrat-Friendly Scores. “By choosing to score only issues with overwhelming liberal support, and little if any support from conservatives, the LCV delivered artificially high marks to liberals and artificially low ones to conservatives. … Had votes on Brownfields legislation and the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act been included in the scorecard, and votes on abortion and campaign reform (at its heart a free speech, rather than environmental, issue) not been included, these scores would have been very different.”  (The National Center For Public Policy Research Website, www.nationalcenter.org, Accessed 6/19/03)