[✔️] Jan 30, 2024 Global Warming News | Fast innovation solid state battery, Climate change documentaries, 1976 corporations freed to lie - Buckley v, Valeo

[Richard Pauli]

/*January*//*30, 2024*/

/[ We can see the goal...]/
*Solid State Batteries - FINALLY powering electric vehicles in 2024!*
Just Have a Think
  Jan 28, 2024
"Solid State Batteries are nearly here!" How many times have you heard 
that phrase in the last 5 years or so?? Myriad developers have tried and 
failed, but some have persevered, and one or two have succeeded AND got 
investment AND got production under way. So is 2024 finally, FINALLY the 
year??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suNUPGC2pwM

/
/

/[ name your favorite /- 
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/energy/truth-actually/?ca_key_code=FE1LQA3 
]
*Truth Actually*
A tour through a century of climate-change documentaries.
By Tom Roston
There’s a chilling irony in the subtitle of the first feature 
documentary film, 1922’s *Nanook of the North: A Story of Life and Love 
in the Actual Arctic.* With those words, director Robert Flaherty was 
clueing audiences in to how he was telling a romantic tale about his 
subject, while presuming it was fair game to refer to the Arctic setting 
as the “actual” part, as unmovable and fixed as a glacier, or what we 
might call factual today.

Yet these days anything that is presented as fact can be questioned or 
twisted. The faraway Arctic now resides in a place of abstraction, 
especially in the so-called debate about whether it is actually being 
irreparably damaged, as a geographical region on which the rest of the 
planet depends to remain healthy. In the screwy public discussion about 
climate change and what we need to do about our dependence on fossil 
fuels, the Arctic is something that is akin to myth. And that’s why, one 
hundred years after *Nanook,* documentary directors are banging their 
heads on the remaining ice floes and trying to use the tricks of their 
trade to convince us that the North Pole, and by extension the entire 
planet, is truly at risk of being destroyed—day by day, carbon-dioxide 
emission by carbon-dioxide emission—by modern life.

For many of us, a glimmer of hope emerged in 2006, when the documentary 
*An Inconvenient Truth *seemed to point the nation in the right 
direction. The film’s star and visionary, Al Gore, said, “Political will 
is a renewable resource.” And many of us believed it. One could see the 
ripples spreading from the film to the massive worldwide People’s 
Climate March of 2014, the eventual adoption of the Paris Agreement in 
2015, and the ongoing grassroots organizing of the Sunrise Movement 
around the Green New Deal and beyond. It was a striking example of 
documentary’s power to collectively change, or at least help focus, minds.

How we got from *Nanook* to*An Inconvenient Truth *and the 
climate-change documentaries that have followed demonstrates the 
nonfiction form’s unique ability to persuade, entertain, and repel 
people. But as Truth’s influence recedes, we can now better see the 
extent and limitations of its powers.

Nanook has been hailed as the first of its kind, as it should be; it is 
a brilliant technical and creative achievement. It also exemplifies the 
genre’s greatest fault lines. What we have come to appreciate and to 
deride about*Nanook* has been passed on, as if in the cowlicks of its 
progeny, to the documentaries that have followed.

First, there is the question of whether it is really real. It is not as 
if things were just happening and Flaherty let his cameras roll—he had 
his subject, “*Nanook*,” reenact scene after scene. Perhaps, at the 
time, it didn’t matter. There were no rules or expectations for the 
form. The seal Nanook kills was already dead. The killing of the walrus 
was a fiasco: having grown unaccustomed to hunting such animals, the man 
portraying Nanook, along with his fellow Inuit, begged Flaherty to just 
shoot the darn thing. And Nanook wasn’t his real name but one chosen by 
Flaherty because he felt it was more cinematic than his actual name, 
Allakariallak.
- -
These are just a few of the many examples of ways the truth was adjusted 
for the screen. Today, we like to think we know better. Documentaries 
come with a promise that they are nonfiction. But that can be a 
double-edged sword. When they work, they can be revelatory about the 
real world. But the pretense that they do so without any tweaking 
attaches to them a permanent cloud of falseness and doubt, leading to 
skepticism for some.

The second major fault is the presumption of objectivity, or at least 
fairness, in many documentaries. Yet Flaherty had no interest in 
appearing objective when he set out to expose the fact that the modern 
world was destroying the Inuit way of life in the Far North. “The urge 
that I had to make Nanook came from the way I felt about these people,” 
Flaherty wrote. “What I want to show is the former majesty and character 
of these people.”

Scottish social critic and filmmaker John Grierson gave this new, 
nonfictional application of cinema its name, documentary, in his 1926 
review of *Moana,* Flaherty’s follow-up feature to Nanook, about native 
peoples living in Samoa. Grierson went on to define the genre as “the 
creative treatment of actuality,” which remains about as honest a 
description of the form as possible.

The Soviets had already found good use for film in burnishing their 
proletarian ideals—Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 masterpiece *Battleship 
Potemkin *is the standout—which did not go unnoticed by Grierson. He 
wrote, “I look on cinema as a pulpit, and use it as a 
propagandist…Cinema is to be conceived as a medium, like writing, 
capable of many forms and many functions. A professional propagandist 
may well be especially interested in it. It gives generous access to the 
public. It is capable of direct description, simple analysis, and 
commanding conclusion, and may, by its tempo’d and imagistic powers, be 
made easily persuasive.”

While Grierson, working for early government film boards, first in Great 
Britain and then in Canada, produced documentaries valorizing the common 
worker, German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl used the propagandistic powers 
of documentary to glorify Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party and to support 
the Aryan myth with *Triumph of the Will *(1935). Riefenstahl’s film may 
be the ne plus ultra of documentaries designed to influence and control 
audiences, but it isn’t the only example. During World War II, the U.S. 
government also produced films representing its view of things—the 
ubiquitous newsreels, approved by the Office of War Information, that 
preceded theatrical feature films—which defined how Americans perceived 
the conflict.

Mercifully, perhaps, in the ensuing decades documentary took a more 
subtle place in shaping minds. State and government entities produced a 
multitude of educational documentaries on various subjects, from proper 
hygiene to correct social behavior. *Duck and Cover,* a 1952 film 
instructing American children in how to protect themselves in case of 
atomic war, comes to mind.

Nonfiction films were entering their green-spinach age: they were “good 
for you,” with heavy-handed narration and stilted re-creations, serving 
primarily as educational tools for schools, churches, and other 
community organizations. They were destined to be pushed around the 
plate by bored viewers. There was also a marginally more sophisticated 
wave of industrial films, made by companies to train their employees or 
inform the public, such as *The American Road*, produced in 1953 by the 
Ford Motor Company to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary.
- -
The advent of television created a place for documentary series such as 
CBS’ See It Now, which first aired in 1951 as a kind of continuation of 
Edward R. Murrow and Fred W. Friendly’s Hear It Now radio series. 
Newsreel periodicals such as *The March of Time* had shown current 
events and history to movie-theater audiences since the 1930s, but 
television—­with programs like the 1952 NBC series Victory at Sea, which 
depicted World War II battles—was displacing the cinema as the primary 
outlet for documentaries.

Walt Disney landed on a subject for a theatrically released documentary 
that would prove particularly popular: the natural world. His company 
released numerous nature films and a series of 1950s spin-offs called 
True-Life Adventures, about seals, birds, elk, lions, insects, and polar 
bears. The films were criticized by some for anthropomorphizing their 
subjects, rather than encouraging people to see the wild on its own 
terms. Despite (or, more likely, because of) Disney’s lack of scientific 
rigor—it was later revealed that a mass suicide of lemmings was 
fabricated for 1958’s White Wilderness, among other falsifications—the 
nature documentary became a leading genre of the form. The English also 
found success with televised nature films and series, and in particular 
with Zoo Quest (1954–64), a show hosted by a young naturalist named 
David Attenborough.

While these politically neutral films focused on big cats and fur seals, 
the documentary saw another significant, though less popular, 
development when a small group of filmmakers began to innovate more 
nimble, powerful methods, with lighter cameras and sync sound, that 
allowed a fly-on-the-wall perspective. They called it direct cinema or 
cinema verité, a nonfiction corollary to the fictional cinéma-vérité 
being made in France and Italy. Those documentaries of the late 1960s 
and early 1970s, directed by D.A. Pennebaker and the brothers Albert and 
David Maysles, among others, were primarily destined for small audiences 
on college campuses and in art houses, although some broke out to wider 
viewership, such as 1970’s Woodstock.

It’s quite a jump to go from Jimi Hendrix genuflecting onstage to a 
Ronald Reagan–era corporate CEO being chased by a populist firebrand, 
but I think it’s fair to say that the documentary’s next great phase in 
the United States, at least commercially—­what many have called its 
golden age—began with Michael Moore’s 1989 personal polemic, Roger & Me. 
Here was a documentary that provided information, was raucously funny, 
and presented a deliberately subjective take on a serious issue: General 
Motors’ indifference toward the people of Flint, Michigan, where it was 
the largest employer. One could also make the case that Roger & Me 
successfully fulfills Grierson’s definition of cinema as a powerful tool 
of propaganda. The film was a revelation, making corporate greed a 
subject of national opprobrium, launching Moore’s career, and after 
grossing more than $6 million at the domestic box office, expanding the 
audience for documentary films.

But it took time for the form to reach its commercial zenith. There were 
other hits, such as *Paris Is Burning (1990)*, *Hoop Dreams (1994)*, and 
*Crumb (1994)*, but it wasn’t until Moore’s 2002 film about gun control, 
*Bowling for Columbine*, which made a then-astounding $21 million at the 
U.S. box office and won an Academy Award—at a ceremony where Moore made 
an anti–Iraq War speech that sent his Q rating through the roof—that the 
documentary floodgates opened.

The year 2003 was a high-water mark for American documentaries as a 
vital cultural form. People flocked to theaters to watch everything from 
a cute spelling bee *(Spellbound)* to an unsettling depiction of child 
abuse *(Capturing the Friedmans)* and director Errol Morris cleverly 
putting the Vietnam War–era secretary of defense Robert McNamara in his 
place *(The Fog of War)*. The following year saw the success of another 
highly manipulative and entertaining polemic, *Super Size Me*, in which 
Morgan Spurlock used the kind of stunt tactics Moore pioneered to change 
the way people perceived McDonald’s.

Meanwhile, nature documentaries didn’t need a renaissance. Wild Kingdom 
had been a successful part of Sunday-night television since the 1960s; 
when its popularity began to wane, the PBS show Nature took its place in 
1982. The growth of cable channels provided a steady stream of flora and 
fauna on Discovery Channel, launched in 1985; Animal Planet, introduced 
in 1996; and the National Geographic Channel, which began airing in 
2001. Attenborough had become a household name. After the 2001 French 
film Winged Migration was released in the United States in 2003, its 
success spurred a string of nature documentaries that did well at the 
box office, starting with the monumentally successful March of the 
Penguins in 2005.

Despite decades of development expanding what the documentary could do, 
the form didn’t significantly tackle the subject of climate change until 
the twenty-first century—not that there hadn’t been a smattering of 
attempts. In fact, one particular jewel, The*Unchained Goddess,* was 
released in 1958, long before the environmental movement coalesced 
around the issue.

*The Unchained Goddess* was part of the Bell System Science Series made 
by AT&T for television and later shown in classrooms. This educational 
documentary, which was produced by Hollywood legend Frank Capra, 
features a scientist and a writer discussing the weather and the 
planet’s meteorological patterns while animated characters chime in. The 
planet’s weather is given a female persona, Meteora, who swoons for one 
of the nice men narrating the show. At the end of the film, the 
scientist clearly identifies the peril of global warming based on the 
then-emerging science about carbon-dioxide emissions. “Man may be 
unwittingly changing the world’s climate through the waste products of 
his civilization,” and a rise in temperatures might mean mass flooding 
of the United States, he says, and jokes that that could lead to 
Americans looking down at drowned cities through glass-bottom boats.

The film ends on an optimistic note. “If the questions are there, 
because they are there, man will answer them,” the scientist says. “Man 
would eventually resolve them. Not for conquest, but so that he could 
live hand in hand with nature.”

The film was an early warning, but one without any sense of urgency. 
Other made-for-television and classroom documentaries about global 
warming would follow, but nothing electrified the culture. (Does anyone 
remember 1981’s *Warming Warning* or 1999’s *Turning Down the Heat: The 
New Energy Revolution*?)

And yet popular awareness of global warming and the need to act was 
slowly building—from the first Earth Day, in 1970, through the 1997 
Kyoto Protocol, when dozens of nations agreed that climate change was 
happening and that it was caused by humans. President Bill Clinton 
signed the agreement. The Senate, however, never ratified it.
- -
By 2005 the public’s concern about climate change and the renaissance in 
documentaries were reaching mutual climactic points. Several nonfiction 
films were set to release that year and the following one, including 
Global Warming: The Signs and the Science, Five Ways to Save the World, 
and Attenborough’s *Are We Changing Planet Earth?*, but it was An 
Inconvenient Truth that became the centerpiece of a national discussion. 
Greenpeace executive director Annie Leonard credits the film with 
shifting American consciousness about the peril of climate change on a 
scale similar to the impact of Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, 
which enlightened an earlier generation about the environmental harms of 
pollution. Truth made $24 million at the domestic box office. The 
release was covered extensively by the media: Al Gore spoke at the 
Academy Awards to an audience of tens of millions of Americans, and the 
film’s success positioned him to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Accepting the Oscar for best documentary feature, Gore riffed on a line 
from the film: “We need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a 
political issue. It’s a moral issue.” It was a succinct and impassioned 
plea, and one that deftly recast climate change to make it accessible to 
a wide audience. It was also—however much you or I may agree with the 
sentiment—propaganda.

*An Inconvenient Truth* is an example of Grierson’s belief in 
documentary’s potential as a “pulpit.” It simplified a complex issue, 
reached a lot of people, and was “made easily persuasive.”

When Grierson called documentaries propaganda, he wasn’t using the word 
pejoratively. He was applying a literal definition of the word: “the 
spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or 
injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.” The definition 
encompasses propaganda put to both noble and ignoble purposes, but we 
more commonly think of it as solely deceitful, intending to mislead and 
propagate lies. When Grierson produced documentaries that demonstrated 
the dignity of the common worker, he didn’t think he was being 
untruthful. He was just trying to be persuasive.

Gore and Truth director Davis Guggenheim were also trying to persuade 
their audience by structuring the film around a masterfully clear and 
compelling mixture of personality, powerful optics, and facts. Though 
the focus of the film is literally a recording of Gore delivering a 
slideshow presentation about global warming, it doesn’t feel like it. We 
watch the notoriously stiff, technocratic Gore point at the numbers, 
ride a forklift, and make self-­deprecating jokes. We travel with him as 
he goes on his crusade to educate the world. We see shocking charts and 
statistics that demonstrate the catastrophic changes in carbon-­dioxide 
levels and global temperatures, with Gore repeatedly referring to the 
scientists whose work backs up his assertions. The most powerful images 
are the ones of destruction and mayhem, natural disasters such as ice 
caps melting and human life imperiled, from floods in India and China to 
Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana.

*An Inconvenient Truth* helped galvanize activism in response to climate 
change. It’s impossible to measure the exact impact, but it’s commonly 
thought that the film had a significant effect on the emerging climate 
movement, culminating in worldwide demonstrations in 2014—heck, Swedish 
wunderkind Greta Thunberg partly credits Truth for inspiring her launch 
into activism.

Other climate-change documentaries followed, including*No Impact Man 
(2009)*, *Earth Days (2009)*, *The Island President (2011)*, *Chasing 
Ice* (2012), *Thin Ice *(2013), *Racing Extinction* (2015), *This 
Changes Everything *(2015), *Antarctica: Ice and Sky *(2015), *Chasing 
Coral* (2017), and *The Hottest August *(2019). Leo­nardo ­DiCaprio 
produced several climate-change documentaries, including *The 11th Hour 
*(2007) and *Before the Flood *(2016).

But after the initial jolt of *An Inconvenient Truth*, these films did 
not inspire the mass interest or action sparked by their predecessor. 
The director Louie Psihoyos promoted his film *Racing Extinction* (2015) 
by projecting images of endangered animals onto the Empire State 
Building. Psihoyos told me why he sought a larger audience: “To create a 
tipping point, you probably need 10 percent of the population. With the 
film and this event, we are trying to reach that number. If you hit that 
number, then you have a chance of moving the needle.” But *Racing 
Extinction* fizzled at the box office, and though it later found a 
respectable television audience on Discovery, the film didn’t move the 
needle...
- -
The only environmental documentary since *An Inconvenient Truth* that 
seems to have had a significant effect on the national conversation was 
2010’s *Gasland*, about the dangers of fracking, in which gas is 
extracted from the earth by injecting high-pressure water and other 
materials into the bedrock. It made a meager thirty thousand dollars in 
U.S. theaters but found far more viewers on HBO, riding a wave of press 
coverage that recast fracking as a hot-button issue in the public 
discussion about fossil-fuel energy.

Perhaps it was the newness of the issue of fracking that helped 
*Gasland* catch on. But much credit must also go to the film’s director, 
Josh Fox, who borrows directly from the Michael Moore toolbox. Fox 
positions himself as the on-camera common man who is not getting answers 
from the powers that be, and uses provocative demonstrations, such as 
setting fire to the gas-infused running water near fracking sites.

Despite the increasing momentum and clear need for action on climate 
change, why have no other documentaries had the impact of*An 
Inconvenient Truth* or even *Gasland*? It could well be that the 
increasing prominence of the issue has made documentaries on the subject 
less powerful. Anyone who cares enough to do anything about the crisis 
is already aware of it. The net effect of a documentary on the subject 
may well have been diminished, limiting the persuasive potential 
envisioned by Grierson. Gore’s *An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power*, 
which came out in 2017, was less an attempt to persuade the unconcerned 
and more a review of what had changed in the previous ten years.

I’d contend that nonfiction filmmakers’ climate-­change messages have 
become background noise and that recent films are merely preaching to 
the converted. For those who are interested, there’s always something 
new on*PBS (The Age of Nature, Changing Planet, the NOVA episode “Can We 
Cool the Planet?*”). And in nature documentaries, warnings about climate 
change are common. In the series *Our Planet*, released in 2019, 
narrator Attenborough leads with dire warnings about humankind’s 
destruction of the earth, along with a reminder that “with our help, the 
planet can recover.” Netflix claims that 100 million households have 
seen it.

Nothing exemplifies the representation of global warming in the United 
States today better than the ubiquitous greenwashing ads by ­companies 
such as BP (rebranded from British Petroleum) and Toyota. These 
companies that accelerated climate change now offer new, improved 
products that are purported to help slow its impact. Global warming is 
now a marketing opportunity.

*Isambard Kingdom Brunel Standing Before the Launching Chains of the 
Great Eastern*, by Robert Howlett, 1857. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
Gilman Collection, purchase, Harriette and Noel Levine Gift, 2005.

Concern about climate change is split between two opposing teams. One 
team knows it’s happening and believes something should be done about 
it. The other team is more like…meh. In a 2021 Pew Research Center 
survey, 94 percent of Americans who identify politically with the left 
said that they were willing to modify how they live in order to reduce 
the effects of climate change. Of those who identify with the right, 
only 45 percent said that they were willing to do the same. The survey 
found that from 2015 to 2021, the percentage of Americans who were 
concerned about being personally harmed by climate change decreased, 
from 30 percent to 27 percent. Again there was a political divide: 
liberals were more concerned than conservatives were by a gap of 59 percent.

During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, aided and abetted by cable 
channels on both ends of the political spectrum, climate change became a 
culture-war issue akin to abortion or gun control. No Democratic 
candidate diverged from the scientific consensus that climate change is 
happening and is caused by humans. Although several Republican 
candidates acknowledged the existence of climate change, most were 
skeptical or adamantly opposed to the idea that it was man-made. Former 
Texas governor Rick Perry declared it a “contrived, phony mess,” while 
Texas senator Ted Cruz said, “The global-warming alarmists are the 
equivalent of the flat-earthers.” Donald Trump called global warming 
“bullshit.” This is not so surprising. Yale Law School professor Dan 
Kahan explains in a 2007 paper that “individuals subconsciously resist 
factual information that threatens their defining values.” In a 2015 
interview, Kahan pointed out that “positions on climate change have 
become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced 
from science.” For politicians financially supported by the fossil-fuel 
industry and neck-deep in the culture of Big Oil, a skeptical position 
on climate change is self-serving.

Could nuclear power be a subject in the conversation about energy and 
climate change that is less tied to these political teams? Republicans 
have been open to the use of nuclear energy for some time, though they 
haven’t taken the lead on the issue. And for the first time in almost 
fifty years, the Democratic Party included a pronuclear statement in its 
2020 platform.

Environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club remain 
adamantly opposed to nuclear power, but it seems reasonable to expect 
that as the rate of climate change increases and the projections worsen 
beyond the capacity of wind and solar power to address them, more people 
will be receptive to the option of nuclear energy.

Back in 2013, the documentary *Pandora’s Promise* tried to change our 
understanding of nuclear power. Director Robert Stone, a seasoned 
filmmaker with a long-standing interest in the environmental movement 
going back to the 1970s, argued that nuclear power was reasonably safe, 
with a smaller carbon footprint and fewer long-term costs than fossil 
fuels; most important, it was more capable of meeting the planet’s 
demand for energy than any other resource. Stone believes that the risk 
of nuclear disaster is manageable and that concerns about nuclear-waste 
storage are exaggerated, leading him to make the sort of “commanding 
conclusion” that Grierson recommended for effective propaganda. 
*Pandora’s Promise* helped motivate a new strain of pronuclear 
activists—from skeptics and freethinkers to concerned parents and 
nuclear academics—in the environmental movement, but it was far from a 
popular hit.

Stone has most recently executive-produced Atomic Hope, a 2022 
documentary directed by Frankie Fenton that depicts the struggles of 
pro-nuclear activists, many of whom were influenced by *Pandora’s 
Promise*. *Nuclear Now,* a documentary by Oliver Stone (no relation to 
Robert), came out in the United States this spring. It makes similar 
attempts to promote atomic energy, but with a strong dose of the 
director’s moxie, including allegations that the Rockefeller family 
seeded many antinuclear myths, such as the claim that low levels of 
radiation cause significant health risks, in order to take down a 
competitor of Big Oil.
- -
Neither film is likely to be the next *An Inconvenient Truth*, 
revolutionizing the cultural conversation around energy. But could the 
fact that they don’t align with a preexisting team make those inclined 
to ignore or even deny climate change more receptive to the discussion 
about how we’re going to power the planet without destroying it?

Expecting tangible, global change from a particular documentary may be 
the wrong way to look at *Nanook of the North*’s descendants, however. 
Nature documentaries have allowed us to behold the world beyond our 
couches and movie-theater seats as it is (and was). Climate-change 
documentaries have, in turn, made the case that the earth is worth 
fighting for. They have allowed us to bear witness to our planet and, 
however grim this may sound, to its demise.

*An Inconvenient Truth *might have realized the documentary’s potential 
as a persuasive tool. But it also displayed the limits of the form. 
Without a political apparatus that responds to the will of the 
people—led by scientists, activists, NGOs, and, of course, local and 
federal governments with mandates to combat global warming—even the 
greatest climate-change documentary won’t stem the tide.
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/energy/truth-actually/?ca_key_code=FE1LQA3



/[The news archive - follow the big money  ]/
/*January 30, 1976 */
January 30, 1976: The US Supreme Court issues the Buckley v. Valeo 
ruling, one of several controversial rulings that effectively allow 
polluters to interfere with the US political process.

    Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme
    Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as
    provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
    1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional...

    The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First
    Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent
    expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including
    nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

*Summary*
On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in 
Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case involving the constitutionality of 
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, 
and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of certain provisions of the 
election law, including:

The limitations on contributions to candidates for federal office (2 
U.S.C. §441a);
The disclosure and recordkeeping provisions of the FECA (2 U.S.C. §434); and
The public financing of Presidential elections (Subtitle H of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1954).
The Court declared other provisions of the FECA to be unconstitutional, 
in particular:

The limitations on expenditures by candidates and their committees, 
except for Presidential candidates who accept public funding (formerly 
18 U.S.C. §608(c)(1)(C-F));
The $1,000 limitation on independent expenditures (formerly 18 U.S.C. 
§608e);
The limitations on expenditures by candidates from their personal funds 
(formerly 18 U.S.C. §608a); and
The method of appointing members of the Federal Election Commission 
(formerly 2 U.S.C. §437c(a)(1)(A-C)).

*Conclusions*
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important 
conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual 
contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the 
First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity 
of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against 
unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental 
restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on 
expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, 
and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First 
Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the 
potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, 
the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government 
interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and 
association.

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/Buckley.pdf

https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/buckley-v-valeo/



=== Other climate news sources ===========================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or 
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines 
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**Climate Nexus* https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the 
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an 
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides 
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter 
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed.    5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief 
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of 
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours 
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our 
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*T*he Daily Climate *Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts, 
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters  at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ 

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/


/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only -- and carries no images 
or attachments which may originate from remote servers. Text-only 
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender. This is a 
personal hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for commercial 
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20240130/5ebf2b30/attachment.htm>