Reclaim Democracy!

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to Free Democracy From Corporate Control

by

Passed by Albany City Council February 6, 2012

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-8

A RESOLUTION OF THE ALBANY CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO FREE DEMOCRACY FROM CORPORATE CONTROL

WHEREAS , the U.S. Supreme Court has granted corporations personhood status, free speech and other protections guaranteed to living humans by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, yet historically corporations were created as artificial entities that were subordinate to our democracy, the City of Albany, California asserts that corporations are not natural persons with human rights but artificial entities created by our government; and

WHEREAS , although corporations have made important contributions to society, they may exist simultaneously in many nations, use court granted “corporate rights” to get laws and regulations that protect people weakened or overturned, put profit ahead of any other concern, and use money derived from consumers and employees to lobby for statutes that endanger democracy, human values, and ecological survival; and

WHEREAS , the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission further threatens our democracy by rolling back limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns, allowing corporate money to drown out the voices of “We the People”; and

WHEREAS , U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy stated that the ruling “will allow major corporations – who should have law written to control their effect on America – to instead control America;” and former Republican senator Warren Rudman wrote, “Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding, corporations are not defined as people under the Constitution, and free speech can hardly be called free when only the rich are heard;” and former Senator Chris Dodd pointed out that “money is not speech,” that “corporations are not people” and that “a constitutional amendment is necessary to fully restore the trust and voice of the American people.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Albany City Council calls for freeing democracy from corporate control by calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish that: 1. Money is not speech, and 2. Corporations are not natural persons and not entitled to constitutional rights.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Albany City Council requests that our appropriate elected representatives introduce and/or support a constitutional amendment that contains both of these principles, or introduce motions to include these principles in related constitutional amendments.

Bozeman Resolution on Coal Trains

by

Posted July 2, 2012

A resolution of the Bozeman City Commission to request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hold a public hearing in Bozeman, Montana, and that it prepare a comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the cumulative impacts of new and expanded coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon, as Bozeman will be significantly impacted by the transport of coal by rail from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming to terminals along the Pacific Coast.

WHEREAS, currently, there are four coal-export terminal projects pending before the Corps: the Gateway Pacific Terminals (“GTP”) site at Cherry Point, Washington; the Millennium Bulk Logistics (“MBL”) site at Longview, Washington; the Oregon Gateway Terminal at the Port of Coos Bay, Oregon; and the Coyote Island Terminal site at the Port of Morrow, Oregon. Additional permit applications are anticipated for the Kinder Morgan project at the Port of St. Helens, Oregon, and the RailAmerica proposal at the Port of Grays Harbor, Washington. Additionally, existing export terminals at port facilities in British Columbia that are already receiving coal shipments are considering expansions.

WHEREAS, taken together, the announced capacity of the planned U.S. projects is approximately 150 million tons of coal per year. Operating at full capacity, these plans would mean approximately 60 coal trains—each about a mile and a half long—moving through Montana , Idaho , and the Pacific Northwest everyday. These trains will pass through Bozeman , Montana , and will potentially result in a significant adverse effect on our community that should be considered in any environmental review of these proposals.

WHEREAS, to ensure each individual permitting action accounts for the significant cumulative impacts of multiple proposed Northwest coal export terminals, the Army Corps of Engineers must first prepare a PEIS that carefully analyzes the combined impacts of multiple, similar coal export terminal proposals.

WHEREAS, such analysis is allowed for, and most likely required, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under Section 1508.25(a)(1) and (2) of the Council of Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations, this environmental review must collect, analyze, and consider connected and cumulative actions for any federally supported project. Further, “cumulative” and “similar” actions should be discussed within a single environmental impact statement, necessitating the development of a PEIS.

WHEREAS, the railroad tracks in Bozeman bisect a significant portion of the city’s residential, commercial, and industrial activities, and the crossings at North Rouse Avenue, Wallace Avenue, Griffin Avenue, and Story Hill Road restrict access to Kelly Canyon, Bridger Canyon, and the Bridger and Bangtail Mountain ranges for residential, commercial, and recreational access. Additionally, the response time of emergency services, including law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services, will be increased to the aforementioned areas, resulting in potentially life-threatening delays.

WHEREAS, the increased noise, air pollution, and inconvenience could lead to significant reductions in property values; and an increase in response times for emergency services could lead to increased property insurance and health care costs.

WHEREAS, increased train traffic, whether by an increased number of trains or cars per train, will cause significant increases in diesel exhaust, coal dust emissions, and noise pollution; and the longer and more frequent delays in vehicle traffic will result in increased emissions of air pollution from numerous cars idling for additional hours per day. These increases in pollution can reasonably be expected to have negative health impacts.

WHEREAS, increased diesel emissions and coal dust will negatively affect the agricultural sector of the Greater Bozeman area, especially farms and ranches adjacent to the rail line. This could cause significant negative impacts in local agricultural production, as farms and ranches may need to relocate to avoid contamination of their fields and pastures.

WHEREAS, Bozeman’s large and growing high-tech sector is a major factor in the economic vigor of our city, and the location of high-tech businesses in Bozeman is closely related to quality of life, which will be negatively impacted by increased train traffic. This could lead to a loss of new businesses locating in Bozeman, the exodus of existing businesses, a reduction in construction jobs and all the supporting businesses and services needed to support these businesses and their employees.

WHEREAS, increased noise and air pollution may negatively affect tourism, as most of the city’s hotels and many other tourist facilities are located close to the railroad tracks. Shortened stays due to these impacts would significantly reduce income among this critical economic sector in our area.

WHEREAS, the citizens of Bozeman would bear the costs to upgrade several railroad crossings and build new infrastructure to mitigate traffic delays and safety concerns, resulting in increased taxes.

WHEREAS, mounting evidence demonstrates the negative health impacts of coal mining, process, transport, and combustion.

WHEREAS, studies show living near major transportation routes and industrial areas correlates with higher rates of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, due to diesel emissions, coal dust particles, and exhaust from idling automobiles.

WHEREAS, increased train traffic through the northern portion of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem and through the I-90 corridor may have a detrimental effect on the waterways, wildlife populations, and health of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Additionally, as more people choose to play poker from Florida and other regions, the increased interest in online gaming platforms highlights the need for robust internet infrastructure and digital safeguards. As tourism and outdoor recreation is integral to Bozeman’s economy, the ecological and economic effects of increased coal transport through the northern portion of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem must be analyzed.

WHEREAS, any environmental analysis of these proposals must consider the negative long-term effects of burning huge volumes of sub-bituminous coal. Domestic demand for sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin has been rapidly declining due to more stringent emissions standards and access to cheaper and cleaner fuels. Coal exports from the Powder River Basin will permanently shape global energy markets. With access to cheap, abundant PRB coal, countries in Asia will be induced to build a new fleet of coal-fired power plants capable of burning the more corrosive, higher-alkaline coal. These new plants, with a minimum thirty-year life span, will lock in reliance on coal from the Powder River Basin and forestall the transition to cleaner energy sources in these developing markets.

WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan, adopted by the Bozeman City Commission on March 28, 2011, states: “Scientific evidence clearly tells us that the Earth is warming, and that anthropogenic (man-made) causes are influencing this trend. That was the conclusion of the second scientific assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and reinforced by the third and fourth scientific assessments by the IPCC submitted in 2001 and 2007. In 2007 the IPCC concluded, ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’”

Now therefore be it resolved that the Bozeman City Commission requests that environmental reviews of these proposals consider the effects on the City of Bozeman.

Be it further resolved that the Bozeman City Commission requests that the Army Corps of Engineers conduct a comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that includes an analysis of not only the direct impacts but also the indirect and cumulative environmental impacts, including the impacts on Montana communities, from all proposed coal ports in the Pacific Northwest.

Be it further resolved that the City Commission of Bozeman requests that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hold a public scoping hearing in Bozeman, Montana .

Go to Montana coal train information page

Debating the Community Values Act

by

The Olympian editorial board attacks the Act; Olympia ReclaimDemocracy.org organizer responds

First published by The Olympian, Sept 13, 2005

By The Olympian Editorial board

There is a small group of people in South Sound who want cities to begin grading private businesses and close down those companies that don’t live up to community expectations. Council members in Tumwater and Olympia should give the folks from Reclaim Democracy a hearing, then promptly move on to more pressing community issues.

David Schaffert, president and chief executive officer of the Thurston County Chamber of Commerce, said his job of recruiting new businesses is hard enough without ridiculous attempts to control lawful companies.

“There are people in this community with strong opinions who want to social engineer the free enterprise system,” Schaffert said. “I think it’s a small group of people, but they tend to be very vocal. And they tend to be very good at being vocal. But they are giving our community a black eye.” Schaffert is right.

The push for a Community Values Act is offered by a core group of about 15 people under the Reclaim Democracy banner. Their goal is to have the city councils in Tumwater and Olympia adopt ordinances that would grade corporations on everything from paying a living wage to how much money they pump back into the local community.

Businesses would be scored on whether they discriminate against employees based on race, gender or age; violate overtime pay laws; don’t provide adequate medical benefits; violate environmental laws; or suppress or discourage workers from unionizing. Companies that pump at least 50 percent of their profits back into the community or turn private property into a public square would receive bonus points.

Under the proposal, those businesses that don’t measure up would have two months to leave town.

It’s a ludicrous proposal. First and foremost are the legal issues surrounding a community values ordinance. How can a company that is legally constituted under the laws of Washington state be denied a business license on something as subjective as whether it contributes enough money to employee medical benefits?

“I think when you have subjective policies that go against people’s constitutional rights, it’s not good for any community,” Schaffert said. “Our community wants to embrace diversity, yet when it comes to businesses, some people in this community want to put all businesses into ‘good’ or ‘bad’ categories based on subjective measures. How can that be legal?” Good question.

Then there’s the question of equity. The folks with Reclaim Democracy admit that the targets of their effort are the corporate giants such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds. They say they aren’t after the mom-and-pop operations. Isn’t that discriminatory? How can the community have one set of business values and not apply them equally to large and small companies? What happens to that small, start-up retail shop on Fourth Avenue that pays its three employees a minimum wage and doesn’t provide the three workers with a medical plan? Will that entrepreneur be forced out of business? What happens to the people who lose their jobs at the businesses that are forced to shutter their doors, and what about the customers who like shopping at Wal-Mart or prefer a McDonald’s burger and fries?

Council members should allow the proponents of the community values ordinance an opportunity to speak their mind and air their proposal. But council members should not waste staff time or city resources pursuing this feel-good measure that is unlawful, unworkable and just plain silly.

Community has a right to self-determination

By Susan Bee

Recently, The Olympian’s editorial board published an editorial “Jettison proposed ordinance,” opposing the community values ordinance proposed by ReclaimDemocracy.org’s Olympia chapter. The editorial is inaccurate and one sided; not surprising given it was written without input from Reclaim Democracy, yet repeatedly quotes local Chamber of Commerce representatives that oppose the ordinance.

The editorial asserts the community values ordinance is supported only by 15 super-vocal people. Not true. Had the board inquired, it would know the ordinance concept is supported by the Green Party of South Puget Sound, the Thurston County chapter of Amnesty International and 200 local citizens.

The editorial featured chamber complaints that attracting new businesses to town is hard without local attempts to “socially engineer the free enterprise system” in a way that violates corporations’ constitutional rights by discriminating against bad-actor corporations.

Let’s discuss this loaded and inaccurate statement.

Socially engineer: I suppose the chamber would say the New Deal imposed a socialist economic order on America. The New Deal did, after all, socially engineer the free market. New Deal programs, like Social Security, are with us today because Americans rejected pure capitalism and market populism. They want a market-based system infused with humanity and they want a democracy that is citizen-based, not corporate based. That is what the community values ordinance is about — beginning to level the playing field between big corporations, like Wal-Mart, and small local businesses that are driven under by Wal-Mart and abandoned by the chamber.

The chamber’s abandonment of local business — and local citizens — is clear. The chamber advocates for multinational businesses interests before all branches and levels of government. It’s lobbied for NAFTA and CAFTA, which hurt small businesses and send good U.S. jobs overseas. In a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, the chamber filed a legal brief opposing certification of a class of 1.5 million plaintiffs, arguing the certification “risks summarily stripping businesses of their right to defend themselves.”

Because the chamber’s record is one of siding with big business over small business and citizens, the board should have interviewed local citizens and local small business associations before criticizing the community values ordinance and Reclaim Democracy as being “silly” and “ludicrous.”

Free market: In the context of dealing with companies like Wal-Mart, the chamber’s free-market advocacy seems disingenuous. Reclaim Democracy supports the free market and a citizen-based government. Wal-Mart fears both. To out-compete small businesses by rolling back prices, many large companies also roll back workers rights by implementing zero-tolerance union policies, paying sub-living wages, illegally cheating employees out of overtime pay and using child labor.

To boot, Wal-Mart gets huge government subsidies, receiving $1 billion from state and local governments since 1980.

Free market? What local company gets this perk while delivering nothing more than poverty-wage, part-time, and no-health care jobs? While wealthy corporations preach the free market, they don’t practice it themselves.

The editorial states the community values ordinance is too subjective. But, the ordinance uses objective, concrete criteria and a structured point system: A set number of points deducted for (1) frequency of violating the nation’s labor and environmental laws and (2) percentage of employees on welfare with no health care.

Similarly, it allocates a set number of bonus points for (1) allowing leafleting on company property and (2) pumping 50 percent of profits to the local economy by hiring local employees, investing and banking locally, and purchasing locally manufactured goods. The company either does these things, objectively, or not.

Determining whether covered corporations act consistently with our community values will be straight forward using these objective criteria and the structured scoring system.

The only legitimate point made is that covered corporations with substandard scores (in the annual reapplication process) get six months to reform or must move two months later. As this could be harsh to employees, creatively rewriting this portion is pragmatic.

As the editorial points out, this is an issue of equity. In America, we value equity — if you work hard, play by the rules, and serve your family and community, your community will support you — economically and otherwise. In 50 years, Reclaim Democracy wants a community of supported and economically prospering citizens who stood up for their right of self-determination and who prevented the community’s wealth from being vacuumed out and sent to silk-lined executive pockets in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Susan Bee was the president of ReclaimDemocracy.org Olympia Chapter, sponsors of the proposed Community Values Act, at the time of writing.

Court Upholds Superstore Ban in Turlock, CA

by

By John Holland 
First published by the Modesto Bee, Dec 22, 2004

TURLOCK – A Stanislaus County Superior Court judge has upheld a city ordinance that kept Wal-Mart from building a supercenter near Fulkerth Road.

Judge Roger Beauchesne rejected Wal-Mart’s claim that the ban illegally interfered with retail competition.

The judge said the stated goals of the nearly year-old ban – preventing traffic jams and protecting neighborhood grocers – were “reasonably related to the public welfare.”

The nine-page ruling was delivered to the city and Wal-Mart on Monday.

“It’s very encouraging,” Mayor Curt Andre said Tuesday. “This is about being able to be responsive to the voters and the values of the community.”

Wal-Mart spokesman Peter Kanelos said the chain’s management had not decided whether to appeal the ruling. It resulted from a lawsuit filed by the company in February, a month after the City Council approved the ban on a 5-0 vote.

“We strongly believe that the impact of this ordinance will be to limit consumer choice,” Kanelos said.

He noted that a federal judge had yet to rule on a parallel lawsuit charging that the ban violated Wal-Mart’s right to conduct commerce under the U.S. Constitution.

Wal-Mart, which has had a 125,000-square-foot store on Fulkerth since 1993, proposed last year to build a 225,000-square-foot supercenter nearby. The larger store would have combined the department store selections of a conventional Wal-Mart with a full-service grocery section.

Backers cite congestion, blight
Backers of the ban said the proposed store would worsen congestion as customers made frequent crosstown trips to buy groceries. Backers also said the store could lead to the closure of supermarkets that anchor small shopping centers around the city – a change that could bring “blight” to the neighborhoods.

The debate was among the fiercest in Turlock in recent years, drawing overflow crowds to Planning Commission and council meetings last year.

“The main issue I had against Wal-Mart was that they were trying to force their way into a city that didn’t want them,” Jacqueline Hollcraft, a Turlock homemaker, said Tuesday. “If a city wants them, that’s fine for that city.”

Some opponents brought up the nationwide debate over Wal-Mart wages and benefits – are they adequate?

People who opposed Turlock’s ban said city shoppers would lose out on Wal-Mart bargains, and the city would lose out on sales tax.

“I think there was a great opportunity to get an enormous amount of sales tax to go to their budget, which they are in dire need of,” Bob Santo, a retired sales representative for the American Automobile Association, said Tuesday. “I also think (Wal-Mart) employs a lot of people.”

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, has more than 1,200 supercenters but only recently brought the concept to California. One of the stores opened in Stockton in October, to little protest. Lodi voters last month rejected a measure that would have hindered plans for a store there.

Officials in Oakdale and Riverbank have talked about the impacts that supercenters might have, though no such stores have been proposed in those cities. On Monday, the Oakdale City Council passed new rules regulating “big-box” stores.

The Turlock ordinance bans most new or expanding discount stores that exceed 100,000 square feet and devote at least 5 percent of the space to groceries and other nontaxable items.

The ordinance exempts membership stores, such as the new Costco Wholesale near Monte Vista Avenue, on the grounds that their customers shop infrequently and buy in bulk, and therefore do not jam traffic.

Wal-Mart claimed that the ordinance singled out the retailer and violates state law by using zoning powers to regulate business competition.

According to the lawsuit, Turlock officials at first welcomed a supercenter but then moved to ban it after meeting with executives from competing grocery chains and a leader in the grocery workers union.

Judge sees legitimate concern
City officials said such meetings are a proper way of hearing the views of constituents.

Beauchesne cited appellate rulings in other cases in concluding that the ban is valid. He acknowledged that it will affect grocery competition, but said Turlock officials had “a legitimate concern for blight, traffic congestion and its resulting air pollution.”

“The fact that the ordinance does or will have an incidental effect on competition is irrelevant so long as there is otherwise a valid purpose in enacting the ordinance,” the judge wrote.

Wal-Mart argued that the ban forces residents to go to multiple stores for groceries and other items, thus producing more traffic and air pollution than if they did one-stop shopping at a supercenter.

Under state law, the lawsuit stated, these environmental effects had to be studied before the council could enact the ban.

City officials said no environmental study was needed, because the ordinance was simply a means of carrying out land-use policies outlined in the Turlock general plan, which had its own environmental review.

Beauchesne agreed.

The council so far has authorized $130,000 in payment to the Oakland law firm defending the city against the Wal-Mart lawsuits. The expense spurred protests from some residents, but Andre said the money is being well-spent.

© 2004 Modesto Bee

Update, April 2006: A California appeals court upheld this ruling after an appeal by Wal-Mart.

For those seeking to learn more about legal tools for controlling the impacts of chains, we suggest visiting NewRules.org. To learn about community alliances to support community-based business, see AMIBA.net.

Index of articles and studies on Wal-Mart and big box stores

Democrats in Washington State Officially Oppose “Money = Speech” Precedent and Corporate Personhood

by

Published June 9, 2004

Editors’ Note: Introducing positions into any local or state political party’s platform is one effective tool for broadening awareness of important issues among politically active citizens. We share below examples of statements passed by the Washington State Democratic Party on June 5, 2004, which occured after many citizens helped pass similar resolutions in their county platforms — a truly bottom-up process. Much of the language comes directly from our articles on campaign finance reform — we’re thrilled to see it put to such effective use!

Related platforms and resolutions have been passed in Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Maine. 

Resolution: Money Is Not Speech

Whereas, thirty-six years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the poll tax, which was a pay-to-vote scheme levied by several Southern states with the intention of disenfranchising Blacks. The Court struck down this scheme in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections by prohibiting deliberate economic exclusion of citizens from the electoral process, and;

Whereas, the bias of wealth still plagues our politics, largely due to the 1976 US Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo where the Court made a leap of logic to declare that spending money to influence elections was a form of “Free Speech,” protected by the First Amendment and largely beyond democratic control, and;

Whereas, as a result, we have two distinct classes of democratic participation. One class includes the majority of us who are entitled to turn out on Election Day to choose from a menu of candidates pre-selected because of their ability to raise (or possess) huge sums of money. The other class includes those wielding the real power – – the ability to finance candidates’ campaigns. This elite group determines the options for the rest of us and subsequently controls the political agenda, and therefore;

Be it resolved, that in order to provide all citizens, regardless of wealth, with more equal opportunities to influence elections, to influence public policy, and to run for office; and to further the principle of “one person, one vote” in a participatory and democratic republic; and to limit corruption and the appearance of corruption in our government, we, the people, declare the unlimited use of money to influence elections to be incompatible with the principle of Equal Protection established under the Fourteenth Amendment, and;

Be it further resolved, that we, the people, support all efforts:

  • To give Congress the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of any federal election, including the power to ban such contributions and expenditures,
  • To ensure that each state shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of elections in that state for all offices, and

State Platform Plank on Corporate Power

Editor’s note: The language here was negotiated by the local activists who succeeded in passing the plank over vigorous objections. This is an example of their individual success, not model language.

  • We believe:
    • corporations are vital to our economy and standard of living;
    • business-friendly laws can be beneficial; and
    • corporations should not exert undue influence on our body politic or use our Constitution in the courts to thwart our democratically enacted laws.
  • We support:
    • revoking the charters of corporations that repeatedly violate our laws; and
    • a government created by, or, and for the people, not corporations.
  • We oppose:
    • the Supreme Court precedent that corporations are people, and further oppose corporate rights as persons under our Constitution and their associated constitutional rights, including the First Amendment right to make political contributions in the corporate capacity; and
    • tax breaks to corporations and other corporate welfare, unless a verifiable public interest is served.

More features on Political Reform

Montanans Organize to Stop Coal Trains, Exports

by

Plans by coal corporations could create five-fold increase in train traffic, extensive traffic delays and large increases in noise and air pollution

Note: City Commission Vote! Gallatin Valley residents: come speak or express your opposition to exporting coal through Bozeman and show your support for this proposed city resolution at the Bozeman City Commission meeting on Monday August 13 (time TBD) at City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue (old library building). Thanks to all who came out to the July 9 Commission meeting to exporess your views and push this forward.

Please see bottom of this page for information on submitting letters to the editor of Montana daily newspapers and (for Bozeman residents) to City Council members.

Imagine dozens more trains than existing traffic levels passing through your town…every day and night. Trains with 70 or more cars carrying uncovered carloads of crushed coal. Time and money wasted in traffic back-ups of 8 or more minutes every half-hour. More noise pollution. Coal dust pollution. Higher taxes to pay for massive “externalities” created by transnational mining corporations like Arch, Peabody and Cloud Peak. All this so they can extract coal from Montana and Wyoming, transport it to Pacific ports and ship it across the ocean, while creating almost no new Montana jobs.

Citizens of Bozeman, Billings, Livingston and other many other communities in Montana, Oregon and Washington would suffer directly while the planet will endure environmental impacts from burning huge amounts of oil to ship cheap coal to China and other Asian nations, where it can be burned with inadequate pollution controls. Virtually no new jobs or revenues would be created in any Montana communities.

This disturbing picture already is coming into focus. We now see an average of five more trains daily passing through communities on the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe rail line through Montana and into Washington (many through Oregon as well). We believe the harms caused to our communities and the environment as a whole are unacceptable and must be halted through a grassroots uprising.

Perhaps we can learn from the lead of Coal-Free Bellingham, which is pushing to implement the Bellingham Community Bill of Rights. Instead of asking the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers to limit the number of coal trains, reduce the 500 pounds of dust that falls of each rail car, or seek help for traffic problems, their resolution says, “Whereas, the residents of the City of Bellingham possess the inherent and inalienable right to govern their own community…” and goes on to prohibit exportation of coal through their port. The group, working through our allies at the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, also has compiled an informative FAQ (pdf). The people of Bellingham are choosing to act as sovereign citizens, not as subjects. Will we?

Elsewhere, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a resolution on May 29 opposing the development of coal-export terminals in Washington, while Missoula took the modest step of passing a resolution asking the Army Corps of Engineers to study the health impacts of the proposed expansion of coal trains and export.

Contact info@ReclaimDemocracy.org or call 406-582-1224 to get involved and get contacts in your community. In Bozeman, an inaugural organizing meeting yielded four action groups: public education, state-level policy, developing city ordinances and networking to build alliances with sister communities and organizations. Contact us for the point person in any group of interest to you.

Background Links on the Coal Train/Export Controversy

News

Key Resources and Organizations

Bozeman, MT Organizing Updates and Resources
(contact us to engage or join local announcement list). See report on inaugural community organizing meeting of May 29.

Speak Up in Print! Express you thoughts in a letter to the editor to one of the Montana newspapers (below) in impacted communities. Reclaim Democracy! created this thorough free primer on writing effective letters to help you (and we’re happy to offer editing assistance).

Bozeman City Commission

  • Sean Becker, Mayor, sbecker@bozeman.net
  • Jeff Krauss, Deputy Mayor, jkrauss@bozeman.net
  • Carson Taylor, Commissioner, ctaylor@bozeman.net
  • Chris Mehl, Commissioner, cmehl@bozeman.net
  • Cynthia Andrus, Commissioner, candrus@bozeman.net