- Cape businessman known for starting NARS dies at 49 (2/23/17)9
- Apparent punch at girls basketball game propels lawmaker into action (2/21/17)4
- Business notebook: Owners ready to roll out the Barrel 131 (2/20/17)7
- Japanese restaurant up and running; owner surprised by fondness of sushi here (2/24/17)1
- SoutheastHEALTH, Washington University School of Medicine announce collaboration (2/24/17)23
- Missouri bill would limit transgender school bathroom access (2/22/17)48
- City issues precautionary boil order near Arena Park (2/23/17)
- Former KFVS12 reporter talks about recovery from eating disorder (2/23/17)11
- $22M bond issue would alter Jackson schools (2/22/17)13
- Two men crack market with local cage-free eggs (2/26/17)12
Scorecard aims to gauge voting on environment
To the editor:
A recent letter was critical of coverage of the League of Conservation Voters' 2001 national environmental scorecard as an example of "the media promoting liberalism in the guise of protecting the environment" for including votes on campaign-finance reform and international family planning.
These claims could not be further from the truth. Scorecard votes, chosen by a bipartisan committee of environmental and political leaders, are designed to distinguish those representatives and senators who, when faced with a clear choice between protecting the environment and siding with special corporate interests, choose the environment. Measures that pass unanimously or without a vote, like brownfield cleanup or salmon recovery, do not represent such a choice and are included on the scorecard only in rare circumstances.
Campaign-finance reform and international family planning were two votes out of the 22 used to determine the 2001 scores. Both are important environmental issues. Getting soft money out of politics is essential to eliminating the pervasive influence of polluting industries. Commonsense family planning reduces the depletion of increasingly scarce natural resources in developing countries.
The scorecard is intended to objectively evaluate the environmental voting records of federal elected officials, not to distinguish liberal, moderate or conservative ideologies. That is left for voters to decide.
League of Conservation Voters