Investigation Reveals Chemical Industry Ad Buy for Scott Brown Campaign

Oops. "Senator Brown’s aides related in a recent meeting that he is “currently unable to support” the Safe Chemicals Act." Brown and his campaign is getting desperate, and in its desperation is getting ugly. - promoted by Bob_Neer

On the heels of Warren’s winning debate performance Wednesday night comes a breaking story: Brown, who’s been screaming bloody murder about asbestos cases, is deeply linked to the chemical industry lobby.

Advocates reviewed the American Petroleum Institute’s most recent 990 and found that via front group Coalition for American Jobs (CFAJ), the API and the ACC (American Chemistry Council) purchased ads supporting Senator Scott Brown’s re-election bid in December 2011.

Meanwhile Senator Brown’s aides related in a recent meeting that he is “currently unable to support” the Safe Chemicals Act, despite supporting a similar bill in the Massachusetts Legislature when he was a state senator.

In other words, the folks who make a living off of keeping toxic chemicals in children’s toys, food containers and personal care products prefer that Scott Brown remains in office for continued obstruction of substantive chemical policy reform.

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, co-sponsored by Senator Kerry and supported by Elizabeth Warren, offers a real chance to finally update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 to reflect what we now know about synthetic chemical toxicity but have been thwarted from addressing by powerful industry influence (read: $$).

Because TSCA is outdated, American families have been exposed to an increasing number of toxic chemicals clearly linked to harm over the years through what most people assume are harmless daily routines. Recent national polls indicate that 68% of Americans support stricter regulation of chemicals used in everyday products, including 54 percent of people who consider themselves “conservative”.  By the way Scott, that’s what we call ‘bipartisan’ support.

Clean Water Action and other toxic chemical reform allies have been fighting for a solution for years:

“It’s a commonsense law that updates TSCA to require safety testing for chemicals used in common products like children’s toys. It ensures the best available science is being used to determine chemical safety and encourages marketplace innovation. It would also phase out the worst of the worst chemicals like asbestos and persistent chemicals that build up in our bodies, persist in our air and water, and can cause chronic diseases like cancer.  Parents and health professionals across the state have met with Senator Brown’s staff repeatedly to urge support for these reforms, to no avail.

Despite not being supported by Scott Brown, the Safe Chemicals Act is gaining momentum. More than 130,000  Americans have signed a petition in support of the Act and Stroller Brigades are popping up in cities across the country. It passed the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee this past July. It’s co-sponsored by Senator John Kerry and supported by Elizabeth Warren.”

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/press/investigation-reveals-chemical-industry-ad-buy-scott-brown-campaign

So tell your friends the truth about #ToxicScott: our Senator’s got a chemical problem. This is quite the opposite of being ‘for us’. If I were Brown, I’d be ‘nervous and snarky’ too…



Discuss

One Comment . Leave a comment below.
  1. Tort Reform

    What is Brown’s position on Tort Reform… and penalties for violation of laws relating to environmental disclosure in real estate? Example: A real estate developer buys a commercial, renovates or develops it, realizes that there are toxic chemicals in the ground, but doesn’t fully disclose this.

    The property is occupied within a few years, and within some number of years people in the buildings become sick, and the sickness is traced to undisclosed chemical contamination.

    Would “tort reform” as envisioned by Brown or by Romney limit the liability of the property owner in this situation to lawsuits by people who got cancer, parkinsons, etc. as a result of the environmental contamination?

    I raise this because there is a situation in Dracut that is similar to this. A lot of local officials, including selectmen, are sympathetic to real estate developers’ sentiments about the high costs and risks associated with buying property that may be contaminated. It also makes me ask whether Brown was involved in legal work for developers who got into environmental trouble when he worked as a real estate attorney back in Wrentham.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 1 Oct 12:15 PM