Search Results for: IRS

Court Grants HARDI Opportunity to Challenge Department of Energy’s Decision-Making

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   

May 3, 2012

 

Court Grants HARDI Opportunity to Challenge Department of Energy’s Decision-Making

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Referred Heating and Air-conditioning Group’s Claims to a Merits Panel for Further Review

 

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action, the government accountability group fighting against federal agency overreach and abuse, today responded to an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding its client, Heating, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), and their fight against the Department of Energy (DOE).

Violating both congressional intent and long-standing agency practice, the DOE exceeded its statutory authority when it circumvented required procedural protections to issue a direct final rule that imposes new energy efficiency standards.

“Despite the government’s efforts to prevent our client, Heating, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), from making its case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has rightly afforded HARDI the opportunity to be heard,” stated Executive Director Dan Epstein of Cause of Action. “By sending this case to a merits panel for further briefing, the D.C. Circuit has given HARDI a chance to explain how the Department of Energy’s abuse of the Direct Final Rule process has real costs on thousands of HVAC distributors and therefore millions of Americans.”

The D.C. Circuit also granted an emergency motion for a stay of a compliance deadline for regional energy conservation standards for certain furnaces.

“We have long believed that this regulation would have a negative impact on the many small businesses in the HVAC industry. The DOE’s abuse of process in establishing the standard is a classic example of why the small business community is frustrated with Washington, stated Jon Melchi, Director of Government Affairs of HARDI.  “We are pleased that we will have an additional opportunity to state our case and protect our members.”

The court document can be found here.

 

Cause of Action Report Finds Millions in Federal Tax Dollars Used for Lobbying

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                               

APRIL 16, 2013                                                                                       

Cause of Action Report Finds Millions in Federal Tax Dollars Used for Lobbying

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Communities Putting Prevention to Work Program Became a Front for Cronyism, Propaganda, Lobbying, and Big Government

 

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, today released “CPPW: Putting Politics to Work”, an investigative report exposing the endemic lack of oversight and accountability within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which led to the misuse of millions of taxpayer dollars by eight recipients of grants from the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) program. Appropriated with $373 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the CPPW program was intended for job creation and public education on tobacco use and obesity prevention. $94.4 million of the CPPW funds were allocated to grantees included in this report.

CoA’s nineteen-month long investigation revealed that CPPW money supported lobbyists and public relations companies who used taxpayer dollars to push laws and agendas that would lead to tax increases on tobacco and sugar sweetened products—violating federal law as well as HHS and Office of Management and Budget guidelines.

Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein explained the consequences of these findings:

Cause of Action has uncovered that the Department of Health and Human Services, the largest grant-issuing agency in the federal government, by failing to conduct effective oversight of the CPPW program, allowed taxpayer dollars to be misused, in some cases violating federal statute. With a program whose funding is expected to grow into the billions, how much more lobbying will the taxpayers be on the hook for before Kathleen Sebelius decides that it’s time to be accountable?”

Upon learning that the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) had issued a report in June 2012 on the alleged misconduct of CPPW grantees in Florence County, South Carolina, CoA expanded its own investigation. CoA is the first organization to report findings of federal money being dedicated for lobbying in these seven other communities:

  • Pima County, AZ
  • Mobile County, AL
  • Jefferson County, AL
  • Miami-Dade County, FL
  • DeKalb County, GA
  • Los Angeles County, CA
  • Santa Clara County, CA 

$2 billion in annual funding is currently scheduled for disbursement under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Community Transformation Grants program to fight obesity use at the local, state, and federal level.

Click here to read a copy of the full report.

 

Amber Abbasi: The Curious Case of Trent Arsenault: Questioning FDA Regulatory Authority Over Private Sperm Donation

Amber Abbasi, chief counsel for regulatory affairs at Cause of Action, wrote an article for the Annals of Health Law, the Health Policy and Law Review of Loyola University of Chicago School of Law:

 

The Curious Case of Trent Arsenault: Questioning FDA Regulatory Authority Over Private Sperm Donation

 

New York Times: Oyster Farm Caught Up in Pipeline Politics

DBOCoyster_NYT

Oyster Farm Caught Up in Pipeline Politics

By NORIMITSU ONISHI

POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, Calif. — Seen from a nearby hilltop, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company is a cluster of shacks with faded white walls. One patched roof appears at risk of being blown away by the next Pacific squall. A dozen workers on a small weather-beaten dock were busy handling a batch of oysters harvested on a recent morning, separating the mollusks on a single rusty conveyor belt.

But this modest, family-run business just north of San Francisco lies at the center of an increasingly convoluted battle pitting longtime allies against one another and uniting traditional foes. Its fate — whether Drakes Bay will be allowed to remain on public land here or forced to close, as demanded by the federal government — has drawn the attention of a little-known, well-financed watchdog group in Washington, a United States senator from Louisiana, Tea Party supporters, environmentalists, sustainable-food proponents and celebrity chefs.

Ken Salazar, the secretary of the interior, decided against extending the oyster farm’s lease in November, and gave the Lunnys, the owners, 90 days to shut down. The Lunnys and their supporters sued, eventually winning a reprieve from a federal appeals court to continue operating until mid-May; the court is expected to decide then whether the lawsuit can move forward.

With the deadline looming, the battle has only intensified. On Friday, Representative Doc Hastings, a Washington State Republican who is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, addressed a letter to Mr. Salazar requesting documents related to his decision and questioning its basis. A couple of weeks earlier, Alice Waters, the owner of Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., and the pioneer of the locavore movement, led a food group in filing an amicus brief urging the court to allow the farm to stay in business.

Patricia Unterman, co-owner of the Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco, a restaurant that serves local seafood and endorsed the brief, said the oyster farm was “such a rare and beautiful use of land and water” in an area with a long history of agriculture.

Ms. Unterman said she and other proponents of sustainable food had long enjoyed good relations with environmentalists, another powerful group in Northern California. “That’s why I was so astounded by what seemed to me a very doctrinaire and unnuanced approach to the Drakes Bay Oyster Company,” she said of the environmental groups’ opposition to the oyster farm.

Neal Desai, an associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, a longtime opponent of the oyster farm, said he did not object to ranching in the park, which the government allows. But the oyster farm has no legal standing, he said, adding, “There are rules, there are policies and there are contracts.”

The Lunnys have kept on farming, though they have slowed down production because of the uncertainty and reduced their work force to 21 from 30. As a busload of visitors descended on the oyster shack, Kevin Lunny, who owns the farm with his siblings, said he had been taken aback by developments in the case, particularly the recent inclusion of his farm in a Republican energy bill in Congress.

Under the bill, the Energy Production and Project Delivery Act of 2013, permits for the nearly 2,000-mile Keystone XL pipeline would be expedited, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would be opened for gas and oil development, more offshore drilling would be allowed — and the oyster farm’s operating permit would be extended for at least 10 years.

“Now people are saying we’re connected to right-wing groups, that we’ll have offshore drilling and it’ll be Drakes Bay Oyster’s fault that the Keystone pipeline gets built,” Mr. Lunny said. “And we’re saying: ‘Where does this come from? Oh, my gosh.’ Other groups that we may or may not agree with have taken up the cause.”

Mr. Lunny’s grandparents moved to Point Reyes in the 1940s to start a cattle ranch business that the family still runs, two decades before a national park was created here. Then in 1972, as Congress mandated that parts of the park be designated as wilderness, the federal government paid the oyster farm’s previous owners $79,200 for their property; they were allowed to continue farming for 40 more years, until last November, after which the area would become the first marine wilderness on the West Coast.

The Lunnys bought the oyster farm in 2004 and soon began lobbying to have the lease extended beyond 2012. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat, championed their cause, writing a bill in 2009 that gave the interior secretary the authority to extend the farm’s permit for 10 years.

Scientists at the National Park Service criticized the Lunnys’ environmental record, particularly in a 2007 report that indicated that the farm had harmed a nearby colony of harbor seals. But the Park Service backpedaled after outside scientists pointed out flaws in its research.

Cause of Action, a government watchdog group in Washington, quickly became the main supporter of the Lunnys’ lawsuit to reverse the interior secretary’s decision. Dan Epstein, the organization’s executive director, said he had been drawn to the case because of the Park Service’s problematic science, and decided to lead the lawsuit as a matter of government overreach and accountability.

“Oftentimes, the regulatory state has impacts that affect small businesses potentially more than big businesses,” he said. “The Drakes Bay Oyster Company, they’re not like a big company that can just afford to hire lawyers when dealing with government decision-making.”

Opponents of the farm, however, dismiss any talk of the little guy versus the state. Cause of Action, they say, is a stalking horse for big business interests, pointing out that Mr. Epstein once briefly worked for a charitable foundation run by Charles G. Koch, one of the two billionaire brothers who have financed many conservative causes.

Mr. Epstein said the donors to Cause of Action, which was founded in 2011 and recognized as a nonprofit in May, “choose to remain anonymous.” The organization does not receive money directly or indirectly from the Koch brothers, he said.

To opponents, suspicions of a broader agenda were fueled when a provision to save the oyster farm was included in the Republican energy bill. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, who introduced the bill, became interested in the oyster company because of his background in investigating the Interior Department’s scientific conclusions on offshore drilling, said a spokesman, Luke Bolar.

Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, a local group, said the farm’s inclusion in this “drill, baby, drill piece of legislation” was very “telling.”

As for Mr. Lunny, some of his new allies, especially the big-government opponents and Tea Party supporters drawn to his fight against the federal government, make him uncomfortable. He was surprised, he said, when his oyster farm ended up in an energy bill promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

“We realize that’s not really in our best interest,” he said.

Photo Credit: Jim Wilson/New York Times

Washington Post: Watchdog groups check administration’s transparency

Sunshine Week: Watchdog groups check administration’s transparency

By Josh Hicks

Learn More

E&E Daily: Court allows oyster farm on national seashore to stay open until at least May

INTERIOR: Court allows oyster farm on national seashore to stay open until at least May

Jessica Estepa, E&E reporter
Tuesday, February 26, 2013

A California oyster farm that was slated to close this week will remain open until at least May thanks to a decision yesterday from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In May, the court will hear Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s appeal of a denied injunction that would keep the farm open while its lawsuit against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is still pending. Drakes Bay was supposed to shutter operations Thursday, but the court has granted an emergency motion that keeps the farm in the Point Reyes National Seashore open until it has heard the injunction case.

The decision drew praise from the company’s backers and a key Republican but criticism from environmentalists.

In the order, the court said it did so “because there are serious legal questions and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the appellants’ favor.”

The order cited another case in which the Alliance for the Wild Rockies appealed to the 9th Circuit after its injunction was denied. In that case, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision.

“We are grateful that the Ninth Circuit has chosen to allow Drakes Bay Oyster Co. to continue operating and recognized the hardships that would have resulted from shutting down the farm before its case could be heard,” said Amber Abbasi, chief counsel for regulatory affairs at Cause of Action, a government watchdog group that is representing Drakes Bay in the case.

Oyster farm owner Kevin Lunny said he is “thrilled” that the company — which finds itself in the center of an ongoing environmental battle — will stay open while his lawsuit against Salazar continues.

“Our fight has always been about more than just our business,” he said in a statement. “Our fight is, and will continue to be, about the great service Drakes Bay Oyster Farm provides to the community as an innovative sustainable farm, an education resource and part of the economic fiber of Marin County.”

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, likewise praised the decision.

“Interior attempted to flat out kill this oyster farm and its jobs by using misleading science and ignoring economic impacts,” Vitter said in a statement. “I applaud the Ninth Circuit for taking this first step to recognizing that the Interior agency bureaucrats, including Ken Salazar, almost put people out of work for no good reason.”

But the environmentalists who have pushed for the farm’s closure point out that a decision from U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers still stands. Earlier this month, Gonzalez Rogers denied the injunction, saying that the court had no jurisdiction over Salazar’s decision to end Drakes Bay’s lease (Greenwire, Feb. 5).

“We are confident the district court got it right when it decided that the Interior secretary had full discretion to let the lease expire and that the oyster company was unlikely to win its lawsuit,” said Neal Desai, Pacific region associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “The 9th Circuit Court’s decision today unfortunately delays by two months the ability for Americans to enjoy their national park wilderness.”

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Applauds 9th Circuit Ruling for Drakes Bay Oyster Company

Vitter Applauds Court Decision Blocking Interior’s Attempt to Close an Oyster Farm

Learn More