Yesterday, the tar sands industry met unexpected opposition.

The Salt Lake Tribune captured it best:

“A small Canadian company, in need of millions for its ambitious plans, also is facing stiff opposition from two Utah environmental groups that are trying to thwart its efforts to build one of the first commercial tar sand mines in the country.”

Photo credit: Sarah A. Miller/Deseret News

The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM), held a hearing on Canadian company Earth Energy Resources’ proposal to mine tar sands in Grand and Uintah Counties in Eastern Utah. Well over half of the people attending the hearing came to support Peaceful Uprising and Living Rivers in opposing the mine. John Baza, Director of the the Division noted that there were far more people than usually attend these hearings.

“This project has no real value or contribution to society,” said John Weisheit, Colorado Riverkeeper and Conservation Director of Living Rivers. “The total amount of oil produced by this mine over seven years of operation would cover just 4 hours of American oil demand – a tiny blip on the radar. However, it will take millennia to restore the watershed they are about to destroy.”

And for that small amount of oil, Earth Energy Resources and the State of Utah are willing to put the entire Colorado River watershed and the 30 million people it supports at risk. Here are a few of the concerns we brought up at the hearing:

• The oil produced by the mine would increase the amount of tar sands oil refined in the Salt Lake area by 13%. This places local communities at increased risk for contamination from arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, cyanide and other toxic substance.
• The mine will generate significant amounts of dust, which contaminates local bodies of water and settles on snowpack, causing it to melt faster.
• Although tar sands produce on average three times the greenhouse gas emissions as conventional oil, the DOGM refuses to take climate change into account for the permitting of this mine.
• Earth Energy Resources already has a poor track record in preventing groundwater contamination. Their pilot mine was essentially abandoned, left unlined, unmonitored and untreated for years, available for wildlife and livestock to consume.
• The chemicals to be used by Earth Energy Resources have been untested as potential carcinogens, or reproductive and developmental risks, and are known to be endocrine disruptors.

Earth Energy Resources claims they will operate the mine with zero discharge, but there is no man-made technology that can guarantee zero leakage of contamination into our waters.

Steve Adler, an attorney with the Utah Energy Office, asserted that the DOGM was simply approving the permit according the requirements set by the State of Utah, and that DOGM wasn’t responsible for addressing many of the objections raised in the hearing, specifically climate change and water impacts. Baza will decide within a month whether or not to uphold the agency’s decision to approve the mine permit.

The biggest message that came out of this hearing is that no one is steering this ship. There is no single agency or government body evaluating whether tar sands development is actually a good idea for Utah. Instead, each agency simply approves rules and permits that were not designed for to regulate the tar sands industry. If Utah is going to consider opening up its lands and waters to tar sands, we should actually have that conversation about Utah’s energy future.

“This is only the beginning,” said Ashley Anderson, Coordinator of Peaceful Uprising. “Communities around the state and country are getting active in opposing the tar sands. We’ll be there fighting back every step of the way.”

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearing and everyone who has gotten involved in our work to stop the tar sands!

Today, the Obama Administration announced that they are opening 1.8 million in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to oil and gas drilling.  Apparently, between the Bush and Obama Administrations not much has changed in the handouts our federal government gives to the oil and gas industries at the expense of Americans and future generations.  And of course we’ve seen how well drilling protects the environment.

Well, potential bidders, the auction closes August 11th.  Who will be the new Bidder 70?

Obama to open 1.8M Alaskan acres to drilling

07/09/2010

Patrick Reis, E&E reporter

The Interior Department today announced plans to open 1.8 million acres of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to new oil and gas drilling.

The Bureau of Land Management is selling leases on 190 tracts in the reserve. Bidding will close Aug. 11.

Nearly 1 million acres in and around the reserve’s Teshekpuk Lake were put off-limits to drilling to protect important habitat for migratory birds and the local caribou herd.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the lease sale balances a commitment to energy production with environmental protection.

“This sale reflects the Administration’s continuing efforts to encourage environmentally responsible development of domestic energy resources, including fossil fuels, to reduce our nation’s heavy dependence on imported oil,” Salazar said in a statement. “It also demonstrates our continuing commitment to protect and conserve wildlife and their habitat on sensitive public lands with exceptional ecological value.”

There are currently 310 authorized oil and gas leases on 3 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve, which sprawls across 23 million acres on the North Slope.

Podcast: Download (10.5MB)

SALT LAKE CITY, UT (krcl) – Ashley welcomes Brad Parkin from Hoogle Zoo to update us on the condition of the 280 birds that were rescued after the Chevron spill. Mayor Ralph Becker updates us on the latest clean-up effort. And in our last segment, local resident Jenna Helf joins us to share her decade long court battle against Chevron. As an employee, she was permanently disabled through exposure to their toxic chemicals. She explains her struggle to obtain justice and hold Chevron accountable for causing her injury. Her story is recounted in The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report; www.truecostofchevron.com © Copyright 2010, krcl

Podcast: Download (10.2MB)

SALT LAKE CITY, UT (krcl) – An estimated 33,000 gallons of crude oil were released into Utah waterways this past weekend. Ashley welcomes local resident and biologist Peter Hayes, Chevron representative Dan Johnson, retired biologist Ty Harrison and Lynn De Freitas from Friends of the Great Salt Lake to discuss the human and ecological impact of the disaster. In the latter part of the show, we welcome Antonia Juhasz, author of The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report. Juhasz argues that the Salt Lake spill is not unusual given Chevron’s global track record.

www.truecostofchevron.com © Copyright 2010, krcl

Podcast: Download (10.2MB)

SALT LAKE CITY, UT (krcl) – As the BP oil spill inches closer to shore, activists are preparing for the worst. In the first half of the show, Ashley talks with marine biologist Rikki Ott, who worked to protect her fellow Alaskans from the political manuerving of Exxon after thier spill. She hopes what was learned from the Valdeez disaster will help residents of the Gulf Coast prepare to deal with BP. In the second half, Brinkley Hutchins, a Alabama native and Greenpeace Student Network Leader describes her flights over the spill and the organized efforts of local residents.

www.rikkiott.com
www.itsgettinghotinhere.org © Copyright 2010, krcl

Salt Lake Valley residents gather at the gates of Kennecott's coal-fired power plant to make their demands for Kennecott and Rio Tinto to stop externalizing costs by polluting the air they breath

It was a striking sight: kids and seniors, moms and dads, returned missionaries and gay couples, singing “Clean energy today!” in unison. Around 40 folks gathered at the gates of the Kennecott Copper coal-fired power plant on Saturday morning to stand in solidarity at the Fossil Fools Day rally, making their demands for Kennecott to stop burning coal in Salt Lake Valley. Attendees ranged anywhere from under six years to over sixty years of age, and carried large, bright banners and signs painted with slogans like “people over profits” and “system change, not climate change.”

The demonstration signals the beginning of what may be a long campaign to convince the only company currently burning coal in Salt Lake Valley to switch to cleaner and renewable energy. The Fossil Fools Day rally, organized by Peaceful Uprising in concert with a handful of other local environmental advocacy groups, presented Kennecott with three simple demands from citizens who live in its vicinity: First and foremost, to immediately cease burning coal; secondly, to transition to clean and renewable energy by the year 2015; and finally, to ensure that the costs of being responsible—the price of switching to clean energy from coal—not be taken out of the wages of its worker, and instead be reflected in the price of its products. All of these are within the scope of Kennecott’s abilities, but the citizens who attended the demonstration agree that it will likely require long-term efforts to convince the company to change.

Speakers at the rally included Dr. Brian Moench, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists and co-founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, and Cherise Udell, Founder and President of Utah Moms for Clean Air.  Dr. Moench offered a long list of stark facts regarding the physical impacts on citizens who live in the vicinity of a coal-fired power plant, Utah’s unique vulnerability to the effects of climate change and coal’s proven link to the climate crisis. Ms. Udell (with her two small daughters in tow in their Easter best) described the effects of pollution on Utahns, particularly children, and the short- and long-term health consequences that have been clinically linked to exposure to poor air quality. Peaceful Uprising engaged in some light street theater, as Ashley Anderson gave a satirical speech in the voice of Kennecott, wearing a huge paper mache mask.

The tone of the rally was one of frustration, but also of resolve. Toward the demonstration’s conclusion, Anderson took the stage again as Kennecott, but this time committed to the participants’ demands. He sardonically offered the company’s gratitude: “You have convinced us; and we want to thank people like you, for helping us do the right thing for Utah citizens.”

You can also read our original post for this action, containing an explanation of why we chose to target Kennecott for Fossil Fools Day.

Also, if you’d like to get involved in the future, please sign up for our action alert list.

[Originally posted on Daily Kos by RJMiller on March 19, 2010]

“At least there’s no tar sands mining in the United States.”  We’ve all heard the horror stories from Canada.  The Alberta tar sands project is among the most environmentally destructive projects in the world: strip mining and pulverizing rock, heating it to 700 degrees, gobbling up water, consuming far more energy than is created, manufacturing four times as much carbon emissions as conventional oil, and spewing poison into the earth, water, and sky.

However, a tar sands project, the first of its kind in the United States, is happening here in the eastern Utah desert, not far from Moab, Arches National Park, and Dinosaur National Monument.  It’s about to break ground…unless you speak up.

[This was originally posted on It's Getting Hot in Here on March 17, 2010]

In Grand County, Utah, people are thirsty. Utah is a desert state; it’s a thirsty place. What we love about Utah is its unique, gorgeous, otherworldly geography, which keeps us coming back or sticking around. So explain this logic to me: a horrifying and unprecedented project could put Utah’s Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon Recreation Area at serious risk, while at the same time thrusting a new source of water-depleting, CO2-billowing, filthy, and geographically destructive (but pseudoprofitable!) business into the equation.

I’m talking about the first ever bona fide tar sands extraction project in the United States of America–right here, in my own backyard!

You might have heard about the tar sands extraction happening in Canada. This nightmarish debacle has transformed countless acres of priceless Canadian biodiversity into a sticky black cesspool, for primarily America consumption. Don’t take my word for it; do a simple Google image search for “Canadian Tar Sands.” After you’ve done that, imagine the effect these proposed tar pits would have on the land immediately adjacent to the sites. Now picture that land as Canyonlands National Park. I’m not making this up.

The citizens of the areas where the proposed pits would be created have had absolutely no say in the permit acquisition and decision-making surrounding this project—and the pits might potentially break ground this year. Did I mention the entire operation would be run by Canada-based Earth Energy Resources? The company made their excited announcement in November of 2009, although Grand County citizens weren’t made aware of the impending project until this month.

Utah Clean Energy, an independent organization devoted to exploring Utah’s potential for alternative and renewable energy resources, recently released a study that explains, in detail, how exactly Utah could create hundreds of new jobs and bring in millions of dollars in new GDP by exploring alternative energy and beefing up our energy efficiency standards. And yet, here in Utah, while 95% of our electricity depends on coal-fired power, our geographical uniqueness is fundamental to our state pride and one main source of tourism revenue, and water scarcity is fast becoming a frightening illustration of some of the foreseeable impacts of climate change, we (and by “we”” I mean a wealthy-but-desperate handful of powerful and shady Utah businesses) want to welcome an industry that would use between twice and five times as much water per barrel to produce oil–oil that wouldn’t even be ready for use before undergoing  an expensive and emissions-rich cultivation process.

Using tar sands, also known as oil sands, as a “cheap” source of fuel is a joke. According to the Pembina Institute, mining tar sands requires between 750 and 1500 cubic feet of natural gas for each barrel of oil. I’m not great at math, but that doesn’t seem terribly economical to my mind. The tar sands mining and extraction process produces three times as many CO2 emissions as regular oil production; the Alberta tar sands project is Canada’s number one source for CO2 emissions. As far as I can see, the only positive thing about introducing tar sands mining into the United States it that it might (and this is a BIG might) reduce our dependence on, and merciless exploitation of, Canada’s tar sands resources, which we are currently reaping without remorse to fuel our morning commute. Why import Canadian tar sands fuel, and the technology to destroy our own land and water for American tar sands?

When you assess the fact that it takes five liters of water to produce one of usable petrol via tar sands extraction, this starts to seem blatantly criminal in a desert state. The privatization of water is a scary dream that is slowly folding itself into our reality, and when you realize that water is required every step of the way with tar sands extraction—to move gas, to build new tar pits, and to provide a waste receptacle for the filthy pits once they are up and running—you start to wonder where all this water will come from, in Utah. Colorado and Nevada are not too excited about sharing their drinkable water with us, of late.

So, what will it be, America? Should we urge Utah to become a leader on the alternative energy frontier, securing our economic and environmental future for our children—or shall we allow her to regress a decade or three, and become the nation’s very first home to tar sands extraction—and its subsequent leader in toxic emissions and contributions to global climate change? My decision is made. We are exploring every avenue for ways to stop this project, and we will update you on how you can take action to help. The tar sands nightmare will not be allowed into my beloved home state and our fine nation, if I have anything at all to do with it.

[Note: We are still trying to figure out the best ways to take action, so as soon as we have a good outlet, we will let you know.]

Other resources:
www.nodirtyenergy.org/
http://oilsandstruth.org/
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/

Jim Matheson’s most passionate opponents may be the Democrats he won’t face.

By Jesse Fruhwirth

Cover Story posted in Salt Lake City Weekly, March 2010 (View the Original)

Photo Credits: John Kilbourn

Wrapped in white sheets to memorialize the uninsured dead, a crowd of 150 gathered to wave protest signs demanding universal health care. Their “die-in,” staged in August 2009, attracted considerable media attention.

The protesters waited at the entrance of Millcreek Canyon hoping to seize a moment of time from their elusive 2nd District congressman, Rep. Jim Matheson, a Blue Dog Democrat who voted against health-care reform in committee and would also vote against it in the U.S. House of Representatives. The protesters had heard the congressman was on his way to Log Haven Restaurant for a fundraiser, and they thought they had a choke point. “We thought there was only one way in there,” activist Richard Lafon says.

But somehow Matheson slipped past them. “I don’t know if he ducked down in his seat,” Lafon says, “but he certainly didn’t engage us.”

While he has challengers to the political left and right in his 2010 race for reelection, Matheson is favored to win, perhaps proving that he can slip by progressives in the political sphere as easily as he did protesters in Millcreek Canyon.

After all, his approval ratings are as high as ever, and each time he’s reelected, it’s by a wider margin. Matheson supporters argue that that proves he’s doing his job: Utah’s 2nd District is conservative, and therefore Matheson needs be moderate, both to win re-election and represent his constituents. His moderate politics have turned Republican-leaning independents into Democrat-leaning independents and widened the Democratic Party’s appeal in Utah.

Despite frustration among progressives, many argue it’s bad strategy to purify the Democratic Party of moderates like Matheson. In Congress, shrinking or eliminating the party’s majority would hamper or end its ability to direct the agenda.

And on the local and state level, supporters credit his moderation with boosting the party’s victory tally.

Despite all that, an “anyone but Matheson” sentiment is brewing. Some progressives argue that if their chosen candidate can’t win the seat, perhaps even a Republican would be better.

Progressive Purgatory
It started in 2000. That year, Matheson—the son of the late and well-liked Democratic Gov. Scott M. Matheson—won the seat that had been held by Republican Merrill Cook. A divisive politician among Republicans, Cook had been trailing in the polls during the year leading up the election and was defeated in the Republican primary.

Salt Lake County progressives really met their fate the next year, however, when the Republican-dominated Legislature tried to solve the irksome 15 percent Matheson victory by changing the boundaries of the 2nd District. What had been a Salt Lake County-only district was changed to include many rural, conservative counties on the eastern side of the state. The district now stretches from the Avenues of Salt Lake City to San Juan County. Even the conservative editorial board at The Wall Street Journal called it gerrymandering.

According to Cook, who toyed with the idea of again seeking the congressional seat he once held but instead is running for the U.S. Senate, Salt Lake County remains “the heart” of the 2nd District. The redistricting, however, lessened the importance of urban voters, where Utah progressives are concentrated.

Zoom forward to 2006, after Matheson had barely won re-election both times in the new district. That year, some progressives, on the advice of then-Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, vowed to vote for a Green Party candidate to send a message to Matheson that it was time to move left. It was reported in Congressional Quarterly that year that Matheson had voted in favor of President Bush’s agenda 63 percent of the time, including a vote in favor of invading Iraq.

Next, zoom forward to 2009, when Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency. His same-old critics were further frustrated, but a whole new crop of Democrats started to get angry, too.

Local activists organized a phone tree in May to challenge Matheson when he strayed from progressive ideals on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate-change bill.

The phone tree was activated just once, but his office received 400 calls that demanded a change in his position.

“In response to that, [Matheson] went underground. He didn’t show up to the rest of the hearings, he skipped committee markup and never showed up during the floor debate,” says activist Tim DeChristopher, the so-called Bidder 70, so nicknamed for his role in fouling up a public lands mineral-lease auction in the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency.

“It was a difficult issue and [Matheson] was scared. That’s really what his M.O. is. He wants to hide.”

That was in May. The “no-show” Millcreek Canyon showdown happened in August, when some activists were already talking about recruiting a candidate to oppose Matheson, says “die-in” organizer Stephanie Bailey- Hatfield.

It happened again later in the year. In November, Lafon, a regional coordinator for MoveOn.org, organized a meeting at Matheson’s South Salt Lake office to discuss Matheson’s “no” vote on health-care reform. “They knew we were coming,” Lafon says. “It was 4:30 in the afternoon and what [Matheson’s staff] decided to do was back out the back door, turn out the lights and lock the door.”

People Power
The next day, DeChristopher anonymously posted a want ad on Craigslist seeking a progressive candidate with “a strong commitment to defending fundamental human rights over corporate profits.” The ad listed qualifications for Congress and the annual wage of $174,000. Links to the ad floated around Facebook and Twitter, although most interpreted it as a joke. “[The ad] was put up there partly out of frustration,” DeChristopher says. Lafon adds, “This was after we tried to get as many people as we could to run against Rep. Matheson.”

Not everyone thought it was a joke. Potentially viable candidates responded to the ad, including two University of Utah professors. About that time, a loose collection of about 10 progressive activists began organizing what would become the Citizens’ Candidate organization.

The next step was for the organization to choose a candidate. Their aim was to involve as many people as possible, so they asked every applicant to submit a 300-word statement of candidacy. “If people were with it enough to send that back to us, then we took a closer look at them,” says Ashley Anderson. The group then conducted a “speed-vetting” process where they whittled the field down to five finalists.

DeChristopher hit the phones, rounding up longtime progressive activists to help in choosing a candidate. It wasn’t hard to recruit them. “I don’t think I ever finished the pitch for anyone. Pretty much I would be midway through my first sentence, and people would say, ‘Yes, whatever it is, if it’s an effort to take out Jim Matheson, I’m in.’ ” The panelists included Brian Moench, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists and founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment; Utah Coalition of La Raza president Archie Archuleta; and others. Equality Utah´s executive director Brandie Balken also participated but not as a representative of her organization, which doesn’t work on federal races.

On Jan. 30, the panelists and members of the public interviewed the finalists at the Salt Lake City Main Library. Around 100 people attended. Each resident of the 2nd District was allowed to vote in an instant-runoff election. The voters chose University of Utah professor of pathology John Weis, who argued Congress needs more scientists and engineers. Weis dropped out days later, stating he hadn’t expected to win and hadn’t adequately anticipated the time commitments.

Citizens' Candidate Claudia Wright

“If you want a citizen-based government and democracy, this is how you do it,” Wright says of the Citizens’ Candidate model. “If you want a plutocracy that is run by corporate interests, [contemporary party politics] is how you do it. Choose. Because that’s really what it’s going to come down to. … I think we are dominated by special interests and lobbyists, and that’s exactly what I’m calling Matheson out on.”

Wright is a strong supporter of single-payer universal health care, marriage equality for same-sex couples, a carbon tax and public financing of all elections. She says Matheson is a servant to his corporate donors who cares too much about being re-elected and not enough about progressive policies.

The Citizens’ Candidate activists serve as Wright’s energetic and unpaid campaign staff, now numbering almost 20 committed people. Ashley Anderson says, “We have more people offering to help than we know what to tell them to do.” There is plenty to do, however, and most of the Citizens’ Candidate activists are new to party politics, precincts, conventions and the like. “A lot of us don’t know what we’re doing,” Ashley Anderson says. “We’ve been seeking advice from a lot of people.”

The effort may be gaining momentum in political circles. Lafon says progressive heavyweight MoveOn. org—which Lafon says counts 23,000 members in Utah, including 14,000 in the 2nd District—have not officially endorsed or funded Citizens’ Candidate, but he’s hoping they will sign on. MoveOn has criticized Matheson in the past, running a radio-ad campaign during 2009 urging residents to call Matheson and ask him to change his stance on health-care reform.

Party Planning
Wright has the tactical instincts necessary to make Matheson anxious at convention—if anyone can. She heard from party insiders, for example, that San Juan County has never organized a mass meeting to elect delegates to the Democratic Party Convention. If she can round up just a handful of supporters in the county to host such a meeting, those votes could be a gimme. She knows it’s an uphill battle, though, and talks about matching tough strategy with passion.

What Wright doesn’t have, however, is much time, and it’ll take her roughly six hours by car just to cross into San Juan County lines from her home in Salt Lake City. Some political watchers say there just isn’t enough time left before the March caucus meetings to get anything out of the May Democratic Convention besides a speech, the party equivalent of a green participation ribbon.

Rocky Anderson, Matheson’s most prominent critic, supports the Citizens’ Candidate initiative “as a nice way to bring attention” to Matheson’s shortcomings but believes Wright should be running as an independent or a third-party candidate. His goal is to remove Matheson, whatever it takes. He thinks Wright and her inexperienced campaign volunteers have no chance of surviving the convention. The Citizens’ Candidate movement could have more impact, he says, by creating a spoiler effect that might force Matheson to move left to ensure he doesn’t lose too many progressive votes.

Republican Candidate Morgan Philpot

There are currently two declared Republican candidates for the party’s nomination to challenge Matheson: American Fork resident Morgan Philpot (left) and Neil Walter of St. George. Philpot, the former state party vice chair who served in the Legislature between 2000 and 2004, was skeptical that he’d correctly heard that the Citizens’ Candidate group was working inside the Democratic Party. “Is it true they’re running at the Democratic Convention?” asked the small-government, low-taxes, states-rights Republican. “Who talked them into that? They’re going to be led surely and quietly to their grave in this election by doing that. It doesn’t really help me because I know exactly where they’re going to be taken in the Democratic Party Convention: They’re going to be shown the door.”

Former Congressman Cook agrees that Utah Democrats might prefer Wright, but he says pragmatism will take over at convention. “The heart of the Democratic Party will probably be where [Wright] is, and yet the leadership and unions and people that provide the money and the establishment part of the Democratic Party will be holding tight to Matheson, I can assure you of that.”

Wright bristles at suggestions that her campaign will be squashed six months before the general election vote, or that an independent candidacy may be more effective. “I’m not going to run a write-in campaign; I’m not going to be an independent. … Democrats are a rare breed enough in this state. We do not need to kill off each other.”

She argues that the best way to neutralize Matheson’s corporate sponsors and strengthen the Democratic Party is to work precinct-by-precinct to grab delegates. “[The Citizens’ Candidate campaign] is only unrealistic to the political pundit who’s only done it one way. … In my voting district, usually when I go to the mass meeting there are seven to nine [party members], which makes five the majority. It only takes five of you to make a delegate in a lot of places in this city.”

She has until March 23 to convince voters to attend Democratic Party caucus meetings and become delegates pledged to her campaign.

Polished Pig
It’s not just Matheson’s 2009 votes on the Waxman- Markey climate-change bill and health-care reform that irk progressives. “Over the years, I keep saying, ‘This is the worst I’ve seen from him,’ and then it doesn’t take long before something else equally bad, if not worse, comes out of Jim Matheson,” says Rocky Anderson. The founder of High Road for Human Rights—who says he hopes to never run for Congress again—has a long list of Matheson votes and positions he finds deplorable.

Matheson voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act, a law the denied the right of habeas corpus to U.S. detainees. He voted in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which union activists complain sends American jobs to countries where workers are more easily exploited.

Matheson broke with his party and voted in favor of a $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut in 2001. Those tax cuts cost $400 billion more than the House health-care reform bill that Matheson voted against, citing a lack of reform measures that would curb costs. “I think putting 30 million additional people into a program that’s going to crash off a financial cliff is not responsible legislating,” Matheson said Feb. 12 on KCPW’s Politics Up Close. Matheson’s staff declined multiple requests from City Weekly to make him available for an interview.

Matheson has also had to dodge complaints since entering Congress that he won’t co-sponsor America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, which would provide wilderness designation to 9.4 million acres of public lands. The bill has 22 co-sponsors in the Senate and 157 in the House, but Matheson isn’t one of them. At an Oct. 1 subcommittee hearing on the bill, he complained that the 20-year-old proposal has not been collaborative enough or inclusive of all stakeholders.

And that’s just his voting record. During summer 2009’s contentious health-care debates, he held no town hall meetings where constituents could face him.

“Matheson won’t even hold public meetings with his constituents. It’s all done in conference call where they can simply, you know, go through and delete the people they don’t want to talk to. I’m not interested in that,” Wright says. “He knows he’s really ticked off his constituency. He knows people are really upset over this health-care thing, and he doesn’t want to deal with them in person.”

Philpot, who also ran for the seat in 2000 but lost in convention, was at a loss to list any policy positions of his that might appeal to Matheson’s Democratic detractors, but he promised to hold public meetings and to be accessible to all. “Here’s the difference. I won’t use them. They’re being used. They’re being asked to step up to the plate and vote for somebody they don’t like simply because they’re being told that if they don’t, they’re going to get something worse. That’s B.S.,” Philpot says. “They need to know that their representative, even if he’s not going to agree with them, is going to listen to them and be honest with them, and they don’t have that right now. They have somebody who’s playing them for the fool. That’s not fair.”

Democrats outside Salt Lake County, such as Carbon County Democratic Party Chair Ed Chavez, aren’t relegated to conference-call-only access. “Every time he comes to Carbon County, I’m able to meet face-to-face with him,” Chavez says. Matheson’s vote on health care was controversial in Chavez’s part of the state, he says, but the climate-change bill in coal-mining Carbon County? “Nobody’s talking about that down here.”

While Matheson remains popular with rural Democrats like Chavez—a January 2009 poll showed an astounding approval rating of 87 percent—those who oppose him do so with zeal.

“He’s worse than a Republican,” DeChristopher says. “The only thing worse than a wolf is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Some complain Matheson has a neutering effect on the state Democratic Party, which itself is often criticized by progressives for acquiescing to the Republican legislative agenda without adequate blood spilled or tears shed in fighting it.

Former state Democratic Party communications director Jeff Bell, now the host of Left of the Dial on KSL Radio and blogger on JMBell.org, says Matheson does have a moderating—and self-censoring—effect on state Democrats. “With Matheson being the highest-on-the-ticket elected Democrat in the state, he has a lot more influence when he or his people talk to the state party and say, ‘We want you to say this, do this, behave this way.’ … The reason is very simple. Jim can, especially when you look at his poll ratings and ever-increasing margins of victory, do a lot of good endorsing down-ticket candidates.”

Practically Perfect

Jim Matheson

For all the acrimony, many remain perfectly satisfied with Matheson, a Democrat in Utah who in recent years has been ranked more popular than anyone besides former Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. And while some complain that Matheson has defanged Democratic legislators who benefit from his continued success, others credit him with making the party more successful.

“We’re having more success in areas where Jim is above those candidates on the ballot. There’s no doubt about it that he has an effect,” Utah Democratic Party Chair Wayne Holland says. “Four [state Legislature] seats we took from Republicans [were] all in the 2nd District [since Matheson took office], and in one we held with a freshman against a viable Republican.”

Holland is a pragmatist. He self-identifies as a progressive, says he was in favor of health-care reform, but trusts Matheson’s judgment. While some complain that Matheson is a poll-watching politician without principles, Holland credits him for representing the will of his constituents. “The House of Representatives was designed to be close to the people,” he says.

Matheson’s opponents aren’t fairly assessing his voting record, Holland says. The party chair points to numerous legislative vote scorecards that distinguish Matheson as decidedly more liberal than his Republican counterparts, Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz, who represent the 1st and 3rd Congressional districts in Utah, respectively.

That’s true. Scorecards from the American Civil Liberties Union; League of Conservation Voters; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (pdf); Christian Coalition; and Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law all reveal that Matheson is more liberal than Bishop or Chaffetz. Sure, Matheson voted to ban gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution, but he ticked off the Christian Coalition by voting to extend hate-crimes protection to gay and transgender Americans. Can you imagine a Utah Republican doing that?

Holland is also a strategist. He says liberals willing to purge Matheson over his vote on health care and climate change should consider whether those issues would even be debated in Congress if not for moderates like Matheson. “Health care wouldn’t even be an issue. There would be no votes if Democrats weren’t in control of the House and Senate. We have to have those [moderate] members in the caucuses in both houses that can be elected in states that are not like Massachusetts and California.”

He downplays the significance of the Citizens’ Candidate, saying both major parties have internal groups pushing for party purity. He accepts the Citizens’ Candidate group within the Democratic Party with the same warm embrace he gives to Matheson: “The party has to be a broad-based organization that can attract individuals to run as candidates and protect our incumbent.”

And while he would make no prediction about Wright’s chances at the Democratic Party convention, he says, “You don’t see Jim Matheson being challenged by people of stature the way [Utah Sen.] Bob Bennett is and that says to me the majority of our party understands we have to be pragmatic.”

The Utah Citizens’ Candidate initiative started after a posting on Craigslist seeking applicants for the position of “Courageous Congressperson” to represent District Two in the upcoming Democratic election. Criteria for the job included “commitment to transparency” and to “defending fundamental human rights over corporate profits.” After withstanding an early setback when the initially chosen candidate, Dr. John Weis, unexpectedly withdrew, the Citizens’ Candidate Initiative has continued to move forward with its efforts to offer a congressional representative chosen by and for the people of  Salt Lake’s District Two.

Claudia Wright at the Public Interviews

Claudia Wright, the new Citizens’ Candidate, was bested by Weis by less than five votes in the initial runoff voting process. Now that she has been asked to take his place as the Citizens’ Candidate, Wright says she is delighted to take the reins. “I am thrilled to have the opportunity to discuss issues that have been absent from the public dialogue for too long. This campaign is about the big picture, and I am ready to move forward into this role,” Wright explained. Weis offered Wright and the initiative his continued support through the duration of the Citizens’ Candidate campaign.

Wright is a career educator who has spent much of her life teaching History, Humanities, Women’s Studies and Gender Studies to high school and then to college students. She currently teaches at the Universities of Phoenix and Utah, and has received myriad awards as an exceptional educator, including the Excellence in Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, and Teacher of the Year from the Excel Foundation. Wright is a founding member of the Utah Chapter of the Human rights Coalition. She has hiked and camped all over Utah’s deserts and mountains, and is passionate about environmental and sustainability issues. She is a vocal advocate for universal health care, having suffered great personal loss in her family circle as a result of inadequate access to health care. She is a member of the LGBT community, and a vocal advocate for equal rights for Utah’s LGBT citizens.

The final candidate was selected at a public interview and runoff vote open to citizens of District Two, held at the SLC Library on January 30th. After a panel of seven representatives from local progressive groups that support the Citizens’ Candidate initiative interviewed the four final candidates and the audience of about 110 locals asked them questions, all present District Two voters offered their ranked choices for their preferred candidates. The instant runoff voting process reflected that preferential differences between John Weis and Claudia Wright were marginal in the first round of voting, and that majority support clearly favored Wright after Weis’ votes were redistributed.

Visit the Citizens’ Candidate website to learn more and find out how you can support this bold new step in grassroots democracy.