Protesters Outside San Francisco ICE Building Denounce Immigration Raids


ICE officials criticized Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s decision to alert the public about the arrests
By NBC Bay Area staff
Published at 5:40 AM PST on Feb 28, 2018 | Updated 2 hours ago

Protesters on Wednesday took to the streets and sidewalks outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in San Francisco, demanding answers as dozens of undocumented immigrants have been arrested across Northern California over the past few days. Sam Brock reports. (Published 2 hours ago)

Analysis: More Than 100 Cities Now Mostly Powered by Renewable Energy

“Cities not only want to shift to renewable energy but, most importantly—they can.”

march for a clean energy revolution

Supporters of renewable energy marched in Philadephia in July 2016. (Photo: Becker1999/Flickr/cc)

More than 100 cities across the globe are now mostly powered by renewable energy, a number that has more than doubled over the past three years, according to a review of environmental data collected from entities worldwide.

The new analysis, a tally of information collected by the U.K.-based group CDP and released Tuesday, accounts for towns and cities that get at least 70 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar. In addition to publishing its complete list, the group created an interactive map that features key details about some municipalities’ transitions.

Made with Flourish

While only four U.S. cities made the list—Aspen, Colorado; Burlington, Vermont; Eugene, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington—the group says 58 localities in the United States have committed to a full transition. Among the largest cities on CDP’s list are Auckland, New Zealand; Nairobi, Kenya; Oslo, Norway; and Vancouver, Canada. Forty-seven of the cities listed are located in Brazil. More than 40 cities—from Burlington to Reykjavik, Iceland to Basel, Switzerland—are fully powered by renewables.

“Through our diverse mix of biomass, hydro, wind, and solar, we have seen first-hand that renewable energy boosts our local economy and creates a healthier place to work, live, and raise a family.”
—Miro Weinberger, Burlington Mayor

“Through our diverse mix of biomass, hydro, wind, and solar, we have seen first-hand that renewable energy boosts our local economy and creates a healthier place to work, live, and raise a family,” said Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger, who urged “other cities around the globe to follow our innovative path as we all work toward a more sustainable energy future.”

“Cities are responsible for 70 percent of energy-related CO2 emissions and there is immense potential for them to lead on building a sustainable economy. Reassuringly, our data shows much commitment and ambition,” said Kyra Appleby, CDP’s director of cities. “Cities not only want to shift to renewable energy but, most importantly—they can.”

The new data reflects the rapidly growing trend to commit to a renewable energy transition at a local level. CDP noted in a statement that Tuesday’s analysis “comes on the same day the UK100 network of local government leaders announce that over 80 UK towns and cities have committed to 100 percent clean energy by 2050, including Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow, and 16 London boroughs.”

The group attributed the rising excitement about energy transitions in part to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, which claims to be “the broadest global alliance committed to climate leadership, building on the commitment of over 7,400 cities and local governments from six continents and 121 countries representing more than 600 million residents.” The alliance launched last summer, after U.S. President Donald Trump revealed his intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The transition trend is being driven not only by a widespread desire to eliminate the use of oil and gas—which is fueling the global climate crisis—but also by economic arguments. An International Renewable Energy Agency report (pdf) published in January found that “by 2020, all the renewable power generation technologies that are now in commercial use are expected to fall within the fossil fuel-fired cost range, with most at the lower end or undercutting fossil fuels,” meaning “electricity from renewables will soon be consistently cheaper than from most fossil fuels.”

NYT Editor Insists the Paper Has No Ideology…Except Being ‘Pro-Capitalism’

“There may be a connection between the NYT editorial page editor saying ‘we are pro-capitalism’ and the NYT having no Sanders backers on staff.”

Bennet’s remarks came as he was facing intense criticism—both internally and externally—for bringing on right-wing climate denier Bret Stephens as a full-time columnist. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/cc)

 

According to the newly leaked transcript of a New York Times staff meeting last year, editorial page editor James Bennet wants his employees and the public to believe that the paper of record is dedicated to open debate, not committed to any particular ideology, and opposed to “simply assert[ing] that we know what the right answers are.”

“Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think there may be a connection between the NYT editorial page editor saying ‘we are pro-capitalism’ and the NYT having no Sanders backers on staff.”
—Adam Johnson, media analyst

Oh, except when it comes to one small matter: capitalism.

“I think we are pro-capitalism,” Bennet said, according to the Huffington Post, which was given a video of the meeting. “The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of, it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that we’ve seen.”

After taking a few moments to insist that the Times “is very concerned with fairness” and outlining what the Huffington Post‘s Ashley Feinberg described as “an ideology of no ideology,” Bennet went on to express support for a lower corporate tax rate—one of the central components of the tax bill President Donald Trump signed into law last year.

“In thinking about, for example, the tax bill in this and that, you know, we actually like the idea of reducing corporate rates,” Bennet said. “We’re not for taxation for purposes of taxation, but we are very concerned about fairness and equitable distribution. And it’s sort of wrestling with the, with the tensions there is, I think, how we come out where we do.”

Bennet’s remarks came as he was facing intense criticism—both internally and externally—for bringing on right-wing climate denier Bret Stephens as a full-time columnist.

While Bennet insisted during the December meeting the Stephens hire demonstrates the paper’s commitment to ideological diversity, one Timesemployee called that expressed commitment into doubt by highlighting the fact that the paper doesn’t have a “strong advocate” for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or his policy agenda on staff.

Bennet responded with what independent journalist Adam Johnson, who also works as an analyst for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR,) called a “comically incoherent” answer, one that didn’t directly address the employee’s observation and instead called on Times staffers to send him possible columnist “nominations.”

Further reacting to the leaked staff meeting on Twitter, Johnson suggested there may be some connection between Bennet’s remarks in support of capitalism and his failure to hire a supporter of America’s most popular democratic socialist for a full-time post.

Funding Infrastructure: Why China Is Running Circles Around America

Posted on  (ellenbrown.com) by Ellen Brown

“One Belt, One Road,” China’s $1 trillion infrastructure initiative, is a massive undertaking of highways, pipelines, transmission lines, ports, power stations, fiber optics, and railroads connecting China to Central Asia, Europe and Africa. According to Dan Slane, a former advisor in President Trump’s transition team, “It is the largest infrastructure project initiated by one nation in the history of the world and is designed to enable China to become the dominant economic power in the world.” In a January 29tharticle titled “Trump’s Plan a Recipe for Failure, Former Infrastructure Advisor Says,” he added, “If we don’t get our act together very soon, we should all be brushing up on our Mandarin.”

On Monday, February 12th, President Trump’s own infrastructure initiative was finally unveiled. Perhaps to trump China’s $1 trillion mega-project, the Administration has now upped the ante from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, or at least so the initiative is billed. But as Donald Cohen observes in The American Prospect, it’s really only $200 billion, the sole sum that is to come from federal funding; and it’s not even that after factoring in the billions in tax cuts in infrastructure-related projects. The rest of the $1.5 trillion is to come from cities, states, and private investors; and since city and state coffers are depleted, that chiefly means private investors. The focus of the Administration’s plan is on public-private partnerships, which as Slane notes are not suitable for many of the most critical infrastructure projects, since they lack the sort of ongoing funding stream such as a toll or fee that would attract private investors. Public-private partnerships also drive up costs compared to financing with municipal bonds.

In any case, as Yves Smith observes, private equity firms are not much interested in public assets; and to the extent that they are, they are more interested in privatizing existing infrastructure than in funding the new development that is at the heart of the president’s plan. Moreover, local officials and local businessmen are now leery of privatization deals. They know the price of quick cash is to be bled dry with user charges and profit guarantees.

The White House says its initiative is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal but is the start of a negotiation, and that the president is “open to new sources of funding.” But no one in Congress seems to have a viable proposal. Perhaps it is time to look more closely at how China does it . . . .

China’s Secret Funding Source: The Deep Pocket of Its State-owned Banks

While American politicians argue endlessly about where to find the money, China has been forging full steam ahead with its mega-projects. A case in point is its 12,000 miles of high-speed rail, built in a mere decade while American politicians were still trying to fund much more modest rail projects. The money largely came from loans from China’s state-owned banksThe country’s five largest banks are majority-owned by the central government, and they lend principally to large, state-owned enterprises.

Where do the banks get the money? Basically, they print it. Not directly. Not obviously. But as the Bank of England has acknowledged, banks do not merely recycle existing deposits but actually create the money they lend by writing it into their borrowers’ deposit accounts. Incoming deposits are needed to balance the books, but at some point these deposits originated in the deposit accounts of other banks; and since the Chinese government owns most of the country’s banks, it can aim this funding fire hose at its most pressing national needs.

China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China, issues money for infrastructure in an even more direct way. It has turned to an innovative form of quantitative easing in which liquidity is directed not at propping up the biggest banks but at “surgical strikes” into the most productive sectors of the economy. Citigroup chief economist Willem Buiter calls this “qualitative easing” to distinguish it from the quantitative easing engaged in by Western central banks. According to a 2014 Wall Street Journal article:

In China’s context, such so-called qualitative easing happens when the People’s Bank of China adds riskier assets to its balance sheet – such as by relending to the agriculture sector and small businesses and offering cheap loans for low-return infrastructure projects – while maintaining a normal pace of balance-sheet expansion [loan creation]. . . .

The purpose of China’s qualitative easing is to provide affordable financing to select sectors, and it reflects Beijing’s intention to dictate interest rates for some sectors, Citigroup’s economists said. They added that while such a policy would also put inflationary pressure on the economy, the impact is less pronounced than the U.S.-style quantitative easing.

Among the targets of these surgical strikes with central bank financing is the One Belt, One Road initiative. According to a May 2015 article in Bloomberg:

Instead of turning the liquidity sprinkler on full-throttle for the whole garden, the PBOC is aiming its hose at specific parts. The latest innovations include plans to bolster the market for local government bonds and the recapitalisation of policy banks so they can boost lending to government-favoured projects. . . .

Policymakers have sought to bolster credit for small and medium-sized enterprises, and borrowers supporting the goals of the communist leadership, such as the One Belt, One Road initiative developing infrastructure along China’s old Silk Road trade routes.

“Non-Performing Loans” or “Helicopter Money for Infrastructure”?  Money that Need Not Be Repaid

Critics say China has a dangerously high debt-to-GDP ratio and a “bad debt” problem, meaning its banks have too many “non-performing” loans. But according to financial research strategist Chen Zhao in a Harvard review called “China: A Bullish Case,” these factors are being misinterpreted and need not be cause for alarm. China has a high debt to GDP ratio because most Chinese businesses are funded through loans rather than through the stock market, as in the US; and China’s banks are able to engage in massive lending because the Chinese chiefly save their money in banks rather than investing it in the stock market, providing the deposit base to back this extensive lending. As for China’s public “debt,” most of it is money created on bank balance sheets for economic stimulus. Zhao writes:

During the 2008-09 financial crisis, the U.S. government deficit shot up to about 10 percent of GDP due to bail-out programs like the TARP. In contrast, the Chinese government deficit during that period didn’t change much. However, Chinese bank loan growth shot up to 40 percent while loan growth in the U.S. collapsed. These contrasting pictures suggest that most of China’s four trillion RMB stimulus package was carried out by its state-owned banks. . . . The so-called “bad debt problem” is effectively a consequence of Beijing’s fiscal projects and thus should be treated as such.

China calls this government bank financing “lending” rather than “money printing,” but the effect is very similar to what European central bankers are calling “helicopter money” for infrastructure – central bank-generated money that does not need to be repaid. If the Chinese loans get repaid, great; but if they don’t, it’s not considered a problem. Like helicopter money, the non-performing loans merely leave extra money circulating in the marketplace, creating the extra “demand” needed to fill the gap between GDP and consumer purchasing power, something that is particularly necessary in an economy that is contracting due to shrinking global markets following the 2008-09 crisis.

In a December 2017 article in the Financial Times called “Stop Worrying about Chinese Debt, a Crisis Is Not Brewing”, Zhao expanded on these concepts, writing:

[S]o-called credit risk in China is, in fact, sovereign risk. The Chinese government often relies on bank credit to finance government stimulus programmes. . . . China’s sovereign risk is extremely low. Importantly, the balance sheets of the Chinese state-owned banks, the government and the People’s Bank of China are all interconnected. Under these circumstances, a debt crisis in China is almost impossible.

Chinese state-owned banks are not going to need a Wall Street-style bailout from the government. They are the government, and the Chinese government has a massive global account surplus. It is not going bankrupt any time soon.

What about the risk of inflation? As noted by the Citigroup economists, Chinese-style “qualitative easing” is actually less inflationary than the bank-focused “quantitative easing” engaged in by Western central banks. And Western-style QE has barely succeeded in reaching the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. For 2017, the Chinese inflation rate was a modest 1.8 percent.

What to Do When Congress Won’t Act

Rather than regarding China as a national security threat and putting our resources into rebuilding our military defenses, we might be further ahead studying its successful economic policies and adapting them to rebuilding our own crumbling roads and bridges before it is too late. The US government could set up a national infrastructure bank that lends just as China’s big public banks do, or the Federal Reserve could do qualitative easing for infrastructure as the PBOC does. The main roadblock to those solutions seems to be political. They would kill the privatization cash cow of the vested interests calling the shots behind the scenes.

What alternatives are left for cash-strapped state and local governments? Unlike the Fed, they cannot issue money directly; but they can establish their own banks. Fifty percent of the cost of infrastructure is financing, so having their own banks would allow them to cut the cost of infrastructure nearly in half. The savings on infrastructure projects with an income stream could then be used to fund those critically necessary projects that lack an income stream.

For a model, they can look to the century-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the nation’s only publicly-owned depository bank. The BND makes 2 percent loans to local communities for infrastructure, far below the 12 percent average sought by private equity firms. Yet as noted in a November 2014 Wall Street Journal article, the BND is more profitable than Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. Before submitting to exploitation by public-private partnerships, state and local governments would do well to give the BND model further study.

This article was originally published on Truthdig.org.

______________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

City of Seattle releases RFP for Public Bank Feasibility Study

Public Banking Institute News: February 27, 2018

City of Seattle

Seattle has made their effort to create a Public Bank official by issuing a request for proposals for a Seattle Public Bank feasibility study. The city expects the final report to be submitted by August 1, 2018. Full RFP text here.

For more information and contact details, click here.

Timeline for RFP below:

Schedule of Events  Date/Time
Solicitation Release 2/26/2018
Deadline for Questions 3/12/2018 5:00 PM PST
Response Deadline 3/19/2018 5:00 PM PST
Announcement of Successful Proposer(s) 3/27/2018 5:00 PM PST
Anticipated Negotiation Schedule 3/28/2018 – 4/9/2018
Contract Execution 4/10/2018 5:00 PM PST

 

Equal Votes: Let’s fix the way we elect our presidents


Equal Citizens
Published on Sep 14, 2017

We have a plan to challenge the Electoral College in the Supreme Court, and we believe we can win—even in time for the 2020 election.

Watch the video to learn more about how we’re going to fix the way we elect presidents.

To get this off the ground, we need to raise $250,000 by October 13th. Please consider making a donation today: https://goo.gl/hp7fNE

Regardless, sign up to join the fight for #EqualVotes. It’s time to fix the way we elect presidents. https://goo.gl/NJRxR3

Trumping Democracy | Official Trailer


CinemaLibre
Published on Nov 10, 2017
DIRECTOR Thomas Huchon

FEATURING: Ben Tulchin, Carole Cadwalladr, Brendan Fischer, Paul-Oliver Dehaye, Rosie Gray

This explosive documentary follows the money to the elusive multi-billionaire Robert Mercer who bought Breitbart News and funded the effort, while inserting Steve Bannon into the presidential campaign as its manager. Using data of millions of Americans acquired from Facebook, Google, banks, credit companies, social security and more, another Mercer company, Cambridge Analytica, used tactics honed during the UK’s Brexit campaign to identify voters deemed “most neurotic or worried,” whom they believed could swing for Trump. In the days before the election, using a little-known Facebook feature, “dark posts”, they deployed highly manipulative and personalized messages, which could be seen only by the user before disappearing. In the darkness of the web, democracy was trumped by data.

Cambridge Analytica

Cambridge Analytica
Data miningdata analysis
Founded 2013
Headquarters London, England, United Kingdom
Key people
Alexander Nix (CEO)[1]
Robert Mercer
Website CambridgeAnalytica.org

Cambridge Analytica (CA) is a privately held company that combines data mining and data analysiswith strategic communication for the electoral process. It was created in 2013 as an offshoot of its British parent company SCL Group to participate in American politics.[2] In 2014, CA was involved in 44 U.S. political races.[3] The company is partly owned by the family of Robert Mercer, an American hedge-fund manager who supports many politically conservative causes.[2][4] The firm maintains offices in New York CityWashington, D.C., and London.[5]

In 2015 it became known as the data analysis company working initially for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign.[4] In 2016, after Cruz’s campaign had faltered, CA worked for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,[6] and on the Leave.EU-campaign for the United Kingdom‘s withdrawal from the European Union. CA’s role and impact on those campaigns has been disputed and is the subject of ongoing criminal investigations in both countries.[7][8][9]

Background and methods

SCL Group calls itself a “global election management agency”[10] known for involvement “in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting”.[4] SCL’s involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. Slate writer Sharon Weinberger compared one of SCL’s hypothetical test scenarios to fomenting a coup.[4]

According to the Swiss “Das Magazin” the methods of data analysis of CA are to a large degree based on the academic work of Michal Kosinski. In 2008 Kosinski had joined the Psychometrics Centre of Cambridge University where he then developed with his coworkers a profiling system using general online data, Facebook-likes, and smartphone data.[11] He showed that with a limited number of “likes” people can be analyzed better than friends or relatives can do and that individual psychological targeting is a powerful tool to influence people.[11]

When SCL Elections formed CA in 2013 it hired researchers from Cambridge University, hence the name.[12] CA collects data on voters using sources such as demographicsconsumer behaviorinternet activity, and other public and private sources. According to The Guardian, CA is using psychological data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without users’ permission or knowledge.[12] Another source of information is the “Cruz Crew” mobile app that tracks physical movements and contacts and invades personal data more than any other app of presidential candidates.[13]

“Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual … So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people.”

— Alexander Nix (Chief Executive, Cambridge Analytica), October 2016.[1]

The company claims to use “data enhancement and audience segmentation techniques” providing “psychographic analysis” for a “deeper knowledge of the target audience”. The company uses the OCEAN scale of personality traits.[3][5] Using what it calls “behavioral microtargeting” the company indicates that it can predict “needs” of subjects and how these needs may change over time. Services then can be individually targeted for the benefit of its clients from the political arena, governments, and companies providing “a better and more actionable view of their key audiences.” According to Sasha Issenberg, CA indicates that it can tell things about an individual he might not even know about himself.[2] [14]

CA derives much of its personality data on online surveys which it conducts on an ongoing basis. For each political client, the firm narrows voter segments from 32 different personality styles it attributes to every adult in the U.S. The personality data informs the tone of the language used in ad messages or voter contact scripts, while additional data is used to determine voters’ stances on particular issues.[15]

The data gets updated with monthly surveys, asking about political preferences and how people get the information they use to make decisions. It also covers consumer topics about different brands and preferred products, building up an image of how someone shops as much as how they vote.[16]

Activities

United States

2016 presidential election

CA’s involvement in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries became known in July 2015.[4] As of December 2015 CA claimed to have collected up to 5,000 data points on over 220 million Americans.[5] At that time Robert Mercer was a major supporter of Ted Cruz.[2][17] The Mercer family funded CA directly and indirectly through several super-PACs as well as through payments via Cruz’s campaign.[12]

Ted Cruz became an early major client of CA in the 2016 presidential campaign. Just prior to the Iowa caucuses, the Cruz campaign had spent $3M for CA’s services,[18] with additional money coming from allied Super-PACs.[18] After Cruz’s win at the Iowa caucus CA was credited with having been able to identify and motivate potential voters.[19][20] Ultimately the Cruz campaign spent $5.8 million on work by CA.[21]

Ben Carson was a second client of CA; his campaign had paid $220,000 for “data management” and “web service” as reported in October 2015.[3]Marco Rubio’s campaign was supported by Optimus Consulting.[22] Meanwhile, the third competitor, Governor John Kasich, was supported by rivaling firm Applecart.[23]

After Cruz dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination in May 2016, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah started to support Trump.[24] In August it became known that CA followed their allegiance and worked for Trump’s presidential campaign.[21][24] Trump’s campaign also worked with digital firm Giles Parscale.[21] In September, the Trump campaign spent $5 million to purchase television advertising.[25]The Trump campaign spent less than $1 million in data work.[26]

In 2016, the company said that it had not used psychographics in the Trump presidential campaign.[27]

The head of Cambridge Analytica said he asked the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for help finding Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails.[28][29]

More at:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

BAY AREA ICE RAPID RESPONSE HOTLINES AND RESOURCES

1/17/2018

What are your rights if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) comes to your home?
Know Your Rights Cards from the Immigration Legal Resource Center
Know Your Rights from the ACLU
Know Your Rights from the Immigrant Defense Project
5 Ways to Fight ICE Raids with Power, Not Panic from California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance
California TRUST Act from ICE out of California

Rapid Response Hotlines
These are all area-specific rapid response hotlines to call when you see Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in that area. They can send people out to verify whether an ICE raid is happening and provide legal support. You can add these numbers to your cell phone based on where you live, work, or frequently travel. More info can be found at the source sites.

General California
844-878-7801 (844-TRUST-01)

San Francisco
415-200-1548

Alameda County (Oakland, Berkeley, etc.)
510-241-4011

San Mateo County
203-666-4472 (203-NOMIGRA)

The following are sourced here.
Santa Clara County
408-290-1144

Monterey County
831-643-5225

Fresno County
559-206-0151

Marin County
415-991-4545

Sacramento County
916-245-6773

Santa Cruz County
831-239-4289

Sonoma and Napa County
707-800-4544

Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) Texting Platform for North and Central CA
Community: 201–468–6088
Allies: 918–609–4480
For Employers
From the NLG SF

Below, find some materials, recently developed by LAAW, which provide information that may be useful to employers in preparing for and responding to worksite raids. Please circulate to your networks, and to employers interested in protecting their workplaces and workforces to the fullest possible legal extent from ICE overreach.

In addition, here are links to our worker-facing fact sheets about ICE raids (all also available in downloadable PDF form):

Operation #OneMoreVote

The FCC is repealing net neutrality, but we can stop them by using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). We need one more vote to win in the Senate, and we’re launching an Internet-wide push to get it.
Fill out the form below. We’ll help you contact Congress and send you alerts about the day of action.

Or text MISSION to 384-387 to contact Congress and stop the FCC

Fight for the Future will email you updates, and you can unsubscribe at any time. If you enter your number (it’s optional) we will follow up by SMS (message & data rates apply.) You can always text STOP to stop receiving messages. Privacy Policy

FIND AN EVENT IN YOUR AREA

Want to make your voice heard? Check out the map below to find a protest or a meeting with a representative in your state. And if there are no events in your area, consider organizing one!
Or view our full events page here.

PARTICIPANTS

Below is a list of notable websites, companies, and organizations who have confirmed their participation in the February 27th day of action. The list is broad, and represents a wide range of perspectives and online communities. The one thing all of them agree on: defending Title II net neutrality.

  • Fight for the Future
  • Free Press Action Fund
  • Demand Progress
  • Tumblr
  • Reddit
  • Etsy
  • Sonos
  • Fiverr
  • GitHub
  • Imgur
  • Patreon
  • Medium
  • Vimeo
  • Know Your Meme
  • DuckDuckGo
  • SourceForge
  • Sonic
  • Slashdot
  • Engine
  • Namecheap
  • Creative Commons
  • Funny or Die
  • Private Internet Access
  • ACLU
  • Daily Kos
  • Daily Kos
  • Public Citizen
  • CommonCause
  • Consumer Reports
  • CCIA
  • OpenMedia
  • Code Academy
  • The Nation
  • Keep Our Net Free
  • BestVPN
  • Bloody Disgusting
  • Bloody Disgusting
  • OFA
  • Roots Action
  • PCAF
  • Access Now
  • Media Alliance
  • 18 Million Rising

WHAT WILL HAPPEN ON FEBRUARY 27

Websites, Internet users, and online communities will come together to harness our power to secure the #OneMoreVote we need to pass the CRA resolution in the Senate. We’ll provide tools for everyone to make it super easy for your followers / visitors to take action. From the SOPA blackout to the Internet Slowdown, we’ve shown time and time again that when the Internet comes together, we can stop censorship and corruption. Now, we have to do it again!

HOW CAN BUSINESSES HELP?

We’ve learned that Congress listens to business owners. If you own a business, you can tell Congress you support net neutrality by signing our letter supporting the CRA here. If you don’t own a business, you can still help out by tweeting at businesses in your area. Learn more here.

WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY?

Net neutrality is the basic principle that protects our free speech on the Internet. “Title II” of the Communications Act is what provides the legal foundation for net neutrality and prevents Internet Service Providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from slowing down and blocking websites, or charging apps and sites extra fees to reach an audience (which they then pass along to consumers.) The Internet has thrived precisely because of net neutrality. It’s what makes it so vibrant and innovative—a place for creativity, free expression, and exchange of ideas. Without net neutrality, the Internet will become more like Cable TV, where the content you see is what your provider puts in front of you.

HOW CAN WE SAVE IT?

The FCC voted to kill net neutrality on December 14, 2017. But Congress can block their repeal using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). It takes a simple majority in the Senate and House. It can’t be blocked by leadership, and there can be no amendments or filibusters. We already have 50 votes committed in the Senate, so we just need one more to win! Then we take the fight to the House where there are already more than 100 cosponsors. We’ll need 218 votes there to win. Let’s get started!

SITES: DISPLAY AN ALERT

On February 27, sites from across the web will display a prominent alert on their homepage to flood the Senate with messages in support of using the CRA to overturn the FCC’s vote to destroy net neutrality. To use these them, you just need to embed a bit of javascript in the header of your site. Click here to try them out, and then be sure to grab the code on GitHub. If you’re a Cloudflare user, try out their Battle for the Net app. And for WordPress, use their plug-in here.

 

  • Screenshot of One More Vote Widget
  • Screenshot of One More Vote Widget

Feel free to use these alerts, our other alerts, or create a unique message that makes sense for your site. If you choose to create a custom alert, please make sure to link your users to battleforthenet.com so they can contact their Senators.

USE THESE BANNER ADS

Do you run a site or blog? Use these banner ads to get the word out on net neutrality. There are tons of ad sizes to choose from here.

We're *this close* to saving net neutrality

APPS: SEND A PUSH NOTIFICATION

Do you run a popular mobile app? Tell your users that ISPs want new powers to control what they see and do online.

An example push notification

EVERYONE: SHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Are you a social media user? Tell all your friends to join the protest on February 27. Click here to access Operation: #OneMoreVote graphics, videos and suggested tweets.

Or change your avatar to a dreaded loading sign below.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

HELP US GET CREATIVE!

We’re just getting started with organizing Operation: #OneMoreVote, so sign up and we’ll get in touch soon with more information. If you have ideas or want to help, let us know. If you run a high-traffic website, startup, or small business, get in touch. We need you!