THE SIERRA CLUB

 

SIERRA CLUB LEADERSHIP: WHO THEY ARE

 

June 2003

 

 

Sierra Club Prides Itself On Liberal Constituency And Leadership.

 

P      New Sierra Club president (and San Francisco attorney) Larry Fahn:  Fahn apparently sees no room for creative compromise. “We face the most environmentally hostile federal government in our nation’s 227-year history,” Fahn said in a recent interview. “We have to use all the tools at our disposal to get the word out about the myriad ways this administration is rolling back environmental progress.”  (“Sierra Club Elects New President,” Currents, www.sierraclub.org/currents, Accessed 6/20/03)

 

Prior to signing on as Sierra Club’s president, Fahn was described as a “corporate-accountability activist.”  (“The Club’s New Board,” Sierra, 7/1/99)

 

Fahn uses his Sierra Club sway in support of abortion, exposed in his San Francisco Examiner column attacking Dan Lungren (R-CA) during his 1998 gubernatorial bid: “[Lungren] voted repeatedly against family planning assistance to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.” (Larry Fahn, “Lungren’s Environmental Record: Odious,” The San Francisco Examiner, 6/23/98)

 

P      Lobbyists: A Sierra Club lobbyist, featured prominently in the “Who We Are” section of the Sierra Club’s Planet newsletter proclaims, “I’m an environmentalist, civil libertarian, pro-choice advocate and openly gay man. … I’m a screaming liberal in a conservative state, and that I have any victories at all is surprising. … I’m a weird liberal …”  (“Who We Are,” Planet, www.sierraclub.org/planet, 10/01)

 

P      Chapter EXCOMs: A Sierra Club chapter executive committee member in California describes her self by saying, “I was raised in the San Fernando Valley and moved to attend San Francisco State during the turbulent and exciting late 60’s. I was always politically liberal and an Activist, and considered myself a city person.”  (Sierra Club Redwood Chapter Website, www.redwood.sierraclub.org, Accessed 6/22/03)

 

LIBERAL PRINCIPLES GUIDE LEADERSHIP

 

Strategy Of “Reaching Out” Just A Ruse?  “Liberal Guilt” Guides Decisions. “The historical traditions of the Sierra Club are under attack from much of the current leadership. Under the guise of ‘reaching out’ the Club is pursuing politically correct ideology rather than holding fast to issues of preservation. The present Board is obsessed with having sufficient diversity in the organization, and intends to get it no matter what the collateral damage. Liberal guilt guides too many decisions. And this is for ‘the good of the Club’ - a phrase one hears much too often.”  (Brenda Walker, “Why The Sierra Club Choked On Population,” Support A Comprehensive Sierra Club Population Policy Website, www.susps.org, 3/98)

 

SIERRA CLUB JOINS LIBERAL ORGANIZATIONS ON EXTRANEOUS ISSUES

 

On Iraq, Birds Of A Feather Flocked Together. Sierra Club was active in criticizing the war in Iraq by joining Win Without War, whose membership includes “familiar liberal advocacy groups” such as the NAACP, National Organization For Women, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Feminist Majority, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Greenpeace.  (Craig Gilbert And Dennis Chaptman, “The Anti-War Movement,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/23/03,Win Without War Website, www.winwithoutwarus.org, Accessed 6/22/03)

 

Last Year, Sierra Club Joined Forces With SEIU In Student Education And Voter Participation Effort.  “The Service Employees International Union Education and Support Fund and the Sierra Club, a liberal environmental organization, [joined] forces in 13 cities across the country to directly involve children in the political process while mobilizing communities with low voter turnout to increase voter participation. Their effort, called Vote for Children, [had] in-school and community-based components. In schools, the effort [was] to teach students about the importance of voting through candidate debates, mock elections, and essay contests.”  (“UPI’s Capital Comment For Oct. 21, 2002,” United Press International, 10/21/02)

 

Sierra Club Joined With Other Groups To Oppose Trade Promotion Authority.  “With the support of the AFL-CIO, Feminist Majority, National Organization for Women, Sierra Club and several other liberal groups, the coalition [of 169 organizations] wrote that the version of the [TPA] bill takes a ‘backwards-looking’ approach to trade policy and does not provide global investment policies or protect the environment.”  (Melanie Fonder, “NATA Introduces SkyGuard ID Cards,” The Hill, 11/14/01)

 

PROTECT AN ENDANGERED SPECIES – DEMOCRATS

 

Exclusively Supports Democrats. “What people are saying is, if you’re a Green Party candidate running for office and you don’t get the Sierra Club’s endorsement, it doesn’t mean you’re not a good environmentalist,’ [Green Party candidate Dave] Chandler said. ‘It means you’re not a good Democrat.’  All this has Republicans, who have long accused the Sierra Club of acting as a shill for the Democratic Party, saying ‘I told you so.’”  (Valerie Richardson, “Greens Say Sierra Club Ignores Them,” The Washington Times, 10/21/02)

 

“Liberal Environmental Group” Sierra Club Spent $1.2 Million On “Issue Ads” During 2002 Election Cycle.  (Chuck Raasch, “$1 Billion Spent On Political Ads On TV In 2002,” Gannett News Service, 12/5/02)

 

Ads Were Used In Select, Close Senate Races.  “The Sierra Club, the liberal environmental group, kicked off an ad campaign [Monday, October 6, 2002] in eight states, seeking to inject their definition of environmentalism into the elections. The races being targeted are (incumbents listed first): Allard v. Strickland in Colo.; Cleland v. Chambliss in Ga.; Harkin v. Ganske in Iowa; Wellstone v. Coleman in Minn.; Carnahan v. Talent in Mo.; Sununu v. Shaheen in N.H.; Dole v. Bowles in N.C.; and Smith v. Bradbury in Ore.”  (“Capital Comment,” United Press International, 10/9/02)

 

$8M Spent On Praising Democrats, Degrading Republicans In 2000.  During the 2000 cycle, Sierra Club waged an “$8 million campaign aimed at electing what it considers a more environmentally friendly Congress in November. … To comply with campaign-finance laws, the ads avoid expressly advocating the election or defeat of any candidate. But the first round of 17 ads airing to coincide with this week’s congressional recess criticized the records of seven Republicans and praised 10 Democrats.”  (Kevin Galvin, “Sierra Club TV Ad Targets Gorton,” The Seattle Times, 4/26/00)

 

During 2002 Cycle, The Sierra Club Political Committee Clearly Favored Democrats In Contributions.  The Sierra Club’s political action committee took no pains to hide its bias by contributing $500,443 to Democrat Congressional and Senate candidates.  Only 13 Republican House candidates received a total of $18,428.  (Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/20/03)

 

Keeping With Club Tradition, Democrat Candidates Superceded Republican Recipients By An Overwhelming Margin During The 2000 Cycle.  Democrats received $357,096 while Republicans collected $11,894.  Just 11 Republicans were deemed worthy, and Mr. Jeffords later changed his affiliation.  (Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/20/03)

 

Perhaps Setting The Continuing Standard, The Club Favored Democrats 40-1 In Contributions During 1998 Cycle.  Democrats netted $229,583 while Republicans were shown the door with $5,708.  (Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/20/03)