theintercept--2020-02-23--After Police Defend a Gas Pipeline Over Indigenous Land Rights, Protesters Shut Down Railways Across

After Police Defend a Gas Pipeline Over Indigenous Land Rights, Protesters Shut Down Railways Across Canada

up to Dr. Karla Tait ’ s arrest were tense at the Unist ’ ot ’ en camp , which for a decade has stood in the way of fossil fuel pipeline construction through the Wet ’ suwet ’ en Nation ’ s unceded territory in British Columbia .
On New Year ’ s Eve , British Columbia ’ s Supreme Court granted an injunction barring members of the Indigenous nation from obstructing work on TC Energy ’ s Coastal GasLink pipeline .
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were authorized to enforce the order , but no one knew when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aunt Freda Huson has lived on the territory since she built the first Unist ’ ot ’ en cabin in 2010 , directly in the path of at least three proposed pipelines that would stretch across pristine mountain wilderness to export facilities in the coastal community of Kitimat .
Unist ’ ot ’ en , which has grown to include a bunkhouse , a traditional pit house , traplines , and a three-story healing center , is associated with one of 13 houses that make up the Wet ’ suwet ’ en Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most remote of a series of Wet ’ suwet ’ en camps established along an old logging road as an assertion of the nation ’ s right to decide what happens on their territory .
Until this month , members controlled access to the area with gates constructed in the middle of the road .
One of the proposed pipelines , Enbridge ’ s Northern Gateway tar sands oil pipeline , was canceled in 2016 .
The future of a second , the Pacific Trails natural gas pipeline , was thrown into uncertainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 percent share .
But TC Energy , formerly known as TransCanada , has forged ahead with the Coastal GasLink project — despite opposition from the Wet ’ suwet ’ en Nation ’ s traditional leaders , the hereditary chiefs .
The hereditary chiefs , along with Unist ’ ot ’ en camp supporters , object to the pipeline on the grounds that it could contaminate land that is a part of who they are and that they rely on to harvest food and medicines and draw water .
The land plays an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ot ’ en healing center , where Tait works , which seeks to help Indigenous patients confront colonial trauma .
TC Energy obtained an initial injunction to force Unist ’ ot ’ en members to get out of the way of construction in December 2018 .
Royal Canadian Mounted Police commanders claimed “ lethal overwatch ” was required , according to documents revealed by The Guardian , and instructed officers to “ use as much violence toward the gate as you want.
” After the RCMP arrested more than a dozen pipeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was established .
Police maintained a presence in the area , spending more than $ 3 million to establish a station halfway up the logging road to the camps .
Unist ’ ot ’ en members negotiated access for pipeline workers as long as they followed an agreed-upon protocol , but TC Energy claimed the checkpoints continued to slow their work .
In the latest court order , the judge argued that the Wet ’ suwet ’ en Nation ’ s title claims and jurisdiction remained unresolved .
In response , pipeline opponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hereditary chiefs demanded that Coastal GasLink vacate the territory immediately .
On February 6 , Unist ’ ot ’ en members watched on social media as the RCMP mounted a dramatic pre-dawn raid on a smaller support camp down the road , arresting six people .
But rather than serving to quell the resistance , the arrests inspired a wave of solidarity protests and transportation blockades across Canada .
Protesters shut down ports , roads , and railways from Vancouver to Saskatchewan , and a blockade set up by Indigenous-led protesters from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rail traffic between Montreal and Toronto .
At least 40 officers descended on a second Wet ’ suwet ’ en camp on February 7 , arresting four Indigenous people who refused to leave .
It took another three days for police to move on Unist ’ ot ’ en .
On February 10 , a helicopter delivered RCMP officers and snowmobiles behind the Unist ’ ot ’ en gate .
They watched from a hill overlooking the camp as more officers approached from the road .
Surrounded on all sides , Tait , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four supporters stood near the barrier , praying and drumming .
Tait was the third to be arrested .
“ Two officers came around me and held my arms to try to prevent me from drumming , ” she said .
They continued to sing , even as they were loaded into the police van .
While the Canadian government continues to pursue a yearslong effort to heal its relationship with Indigenous people , for many , the arrests of the Unist ’ ot ’ en matriarchs were representative of the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconciliation — especially when it comes to land rights .
Indeed , documents uncovered by journalists and researchers confirm that officials have strategized furiously about how to prevent the Wet ’ suwet ’ en people ’ s assertion of land rights from getting in the way of the message that Canada is open for business .
“ The violence of Canada and the emptiness of its commitments to us as Indigenous people were laid bare in their actions , and their forcible removal of us in the midst of ceremony , ” Tait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading up to February 10 are another culmination of the efforts of Canada to discredit and criminalize us for simply existing on our land as we always have — for defending our rights to our landbase and our historic economy , our ways of empowering ourselves — because of the threat to the capitalist economy.
” In the wake of the police raids , leaders of the movement declared , “ Reconciliation is dead.
” The Wet ’ suwet ’ en Nation has never signed treaties or ceded territory to the Canadian government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defended fiercely in court as well as on the ground .
Its hereditary chiefs were behind a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1997 known as Delgamuukw vs. the Queen , which recognized the existence of aboriginal title , whereby Indigenous people have the right to “ exclusive use and occupation ” of territory .
However , because of a technicality , the court did not resolve the boundaries of the Wet ’ suwet ’ en ’ s claim to 8,500 square miles of land , stating that title would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings , which were never completed .
Documents obtained by the Canadian publication The Narwhal show that the Delgamuukw decision sent chills through Canadian extractive industries .
The documents indicate that the government of British Columbia , a province largely made up of unceded territory , rushed to reassure industry officials , inviting them to provide input on a treaty-making process meant to settle questions over authority on unceded land .
In one memo , describing a meeting held in the wake of the ruling , Marlie Beets , then vice-president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told B.C .
officials that Indigenous nations must hand over their land to Canada .
“ The decision makes the need for certainty through surrender all the more clear , ” she said .
“ We see no other alternative.
” Other industries echoed the alarm .
“ The oil and gas industry in particular has expressed concern about their ability to continue to do business in the province absent a clear direction from the government on how it will address the implications of the Delgamuukw decision , ” stated a memo by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
At a meeting set up by British Columbia ’ s treaty officials , one lawyer , whose client is unclear , underlined that “ what is needed is a clear exchange and an end of Aboriginal rights and title for a defined set of treaty rights.
” The Delgamuukw ruling took place just as discussions were coming to a head about how Canada should address the severe harms wrought by its residential schools .
For more than a century , Canada had forcibly removed Native children from their families and sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barred from speaking their language and practicing their culture .
Many experienced physical and sexual abuse .
As officials were wringing their hands about the court decision , the federal government provided a grant of $ 350 million to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation , meant for survivors of Canada ’ s residential schools .
In a memo to the B.C .
Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs , British Columbia treaty negotiators suggested that the money could be used as leverage .
Prioritizing it for First Nations that participated in the negotiations process could “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated .
“ There were many ideas put forward as public servants brainstormed about how to move forward .
The grant was never used for this purpose , ” Sarah Plank , communications director for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation , said in a statement to The Intercept .
The province ’ s approach has evolved over the past 20 years , she added , and does not require Indigenous nations to relinquish their rights .
Plank described reconciliation as an “ all-of-society journey ” best achieved with feedback from stakeholders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ot ’ en checkpoint was erected a year after the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission created to offer recommendations for how the Canadian government should address the residential system ’ s impact .
With the Unist ’ ot ’ en camp sitting in the middle of a planned pipeline corridor meant to bolster Canada ’ s status as an energy superpower , and with the Delgamuukw case undermining Canada ’ s attempts to override the Wet ’ suwet ’ en hereditary chiefs , the stage was set for a clash between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Royal Canadian Mounted Police have played a key role in Canada ’ s attempt to protect business interests from Indigenous land claims .
The law enforcement agency has closely monitored the Unist ’ ot ’ en camp since its inception , labeling those involved with the Wet ’ suwet ’ en resistance as extremists .
The Aboriginal Policing Services branch of British Columbia ’ s RCMP circulated regular updates on the camp , keeping tabs on mundane activities such as the construction of a root cellar and garden , according to documents obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors of the book “ Policing Indigenous Movements.
” The camp was also targeted by an RCMP surveillance program called Project Sitka .
The program was launched in the wake of massive Idle No More protests in 2012 and 2013 , which were inspired in part by Indigenous objections to the Northern Gateway pipeline and legislation limiting Indigenous consultation on development projects .
Using pseudo-scientific methods , the RCMP attempted to predict which participants in Indigenous social movements were most at risk of disruptive or criminal behavior , investigating 300 activists and compiling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monitoring .
Sixteen activists on the Sitka list were from British Columbia , the majority of them involved in the Unist ’ ot ’ en camp , according to a 2015 RCMP report .
A risk assessment by Canada ’ s emergency response agency stated that the Unist ’ ot ’ en site represented the “ ideological and physical focal point of Aboriginal resistance to resource extraction projects ” across Canada .
To many , the RCMP ’ s involvement in defending the Coastal GasLink project represents another chapter in the agency ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indigenous people from land desirable to settlers .
The police agency did not respond to a request for comment .
That same year that the RCMP circulated the Sitka watchlist , the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its recommendations .
Among them was a demand that companies obtain “ the free , prior , and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.
” British Columbia has repeatedly pointed to the fact that five out of six Wet ’ suwet ’ en elected band councils were among 20 First Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coastal GasLink .
Seventeen also signed agreements with the B.C .
government .
But according to Shiri Pasternak , a Ryerson University professor and research director at the First Nation-led Yellowhead Institute , who obtained the documents published by The Narwhal , the agreements for Coastal GasLink were obtained coercively .
In one 2015 agreement that Pasternak obtained , British Columbia promised $ 46 million over 40 years to a First Nation in exchange for consent .
“ Here you have the premier of the province justifying over and over again to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects bring economic prosperity to First Nations , and we shouldn ’ t stand in the way , ” Pasternak said .
But it ’ s no real choice , she added , for communities that have long been starved for resources .
“ Programs the province and the federal governments have underfunded systemically for decades and decades are contingent now to signing onto these critical infrastructure projects .
It ’ s so morally reprehensible and bankrupt.
” Furthermore , the Wet ’ suwet ’ en hereditary chiefs underline that while the elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserve land , the vast majority of which is not affected by the pipeline , the Delgamuukw ruling and a subsequent court decision affirm that in the traditional territory through which Coastal GasLink passes , it ’ s the hereditary chiefs whose authority matters .
British Columbia has been in government-to-government discussions with the Wet ’ suwet ’ en hereditary chiefs about land rights and title for almost a year , Plank , the spokesperson for the B.C .
Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation , told The Intercept .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has stated that rescinding the government ’ s approval for Coastal GasLink is not on the table .
The spokesperson pointed to the provincial legislature ’ s recent passage of a bill that enshrines into law the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as evidence of British Columbia ’ s commitment to reconciliation .
But despite the declaration ’ s language requiring “ free , prior , and informed consent ” from affected Native people for development projects , Fraser has said the law will not give Indigenous nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involvement of the RCMP in Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory further challenges the province ’ s efforts to formalize Indigenous land rights .
As the president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs , Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Okanagan Nation , asserted in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Corporation , “ Reconciliation can not be achieved at gunpoint.
” Nearly two weeks after the raid at the Unist ’ ot ’ en camp , the remote RCMP station in Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory remains active .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the healing center , they watch its grounds 24/7 , said Tait .
She and her family were released soon after their arrests , but one of the women arrested on the road , who goes by the name Lady Chainsaw , remained jailed for 11 days , refusing to agree to stop blocking construction .
Solidarity protests have continued , and the Mohawk blockade remains in place .
Via Rail said that 100,000 people who rely on the train have had to find other means of travel , while the head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 425 million in products are being stranded daily .
Blockade participants say they will not back down unless the RCMP leaves the Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory .
The police have said they will withdraw , as long as the road remains clear for pipeline workers .
Meanwhile , Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been holding desperate meetings attempting to find a way forward that would appear friendly to Indigenous people as well as the fossil fuel industry .
But at news conference on Friday , he stated , “ The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The injunctions must be obeyed and the law must be upheld.
” “ It doesn ’ t come as much of a surprise if Canada is ultimately wishing to continue that agenda of seeking profits and wealth at the cost of human lives and rights , ” said Tait .
She added that railway disruption is a reminder of the economic devastation wrought by the Canadian government ’ s centuries of attempting to forcibly access Indigenous people ’ s land .
“ It ’ s really sad that it had to get @ @ @ @ @

The weeks leading up to Dr. Karla Tait’s arrest were tense at the Unist’ot’en camp, which for a decade has stood in the way of fossil fuel pipeline construction through the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s unceded territory in British Columbia. On New Year’s Eve, British Columbia’s Supreme Court granted an injunction barring members of the Indigenous nation from obstructing work on TC Energy’s Coastal GasLink pipeline. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were authorized to enforce the order, but no one knew when they would come.
Tait’s aunt Freda Huson has lived on the territory since she built the first Unist’ot’en cabin in 2010, directly in the path of at least three proposed pipelines that would stretch across pristine mountain wilderness to export facilities in the coastal community of Kitimat. Unist’ot’en, which has grown to include a bunkhouse, a traditional pit house, traplines, and a three-story healing center, is associated with one of 13 houses that make up the Wet’suwet’en Nation. The camp is the oldest and most remote of a series of Wet’suwet’en camps established along an old logging road as an assertion of the nation’s right to decide what happens on their territory. Until this month, members controlled access to the area with gates constructed in the middle of the road.
One of the proposed pipelines, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway tar sands oil pipeline, was canceled in 2016. The future of a second, the Pacific Trails natural gas pipeline, was thrown into uncertainty after Chevron announced plans to divest its 50 percent share. But TC Energy, formerly known as TransCanada, has forged ahead with the Coastal GasLink project — despite opposition from the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s traditional leaders, the hereditary chiefs.
First/Top Left: Victoria Redsun, a Denesuline supporter, stands in ceremony with Huson and others as police arrive at the healing center on Feb. 10, 2020. Second/Top Right: Royal Canadian Mounted Police stage among red dresses as they prepare to enforce Coastal GasLink’s injunction. Third/Bottom: Nlaka’pamux supporter Autumn Walken goes limp as she is arrested at the Unist’ot’en healing center on Feb. 10, 2020. Huson and five others were arrested that day. Photo: Amber Bracken
The hereditary chiefs, along with Unist’ot’en camp supporters, object to the pipeline on the grounds that it could contaminate land that is a part of who they are and that they rely on to harvest food and medicines and draw water. The land plays an integral role in programming at the Unist’ot’en healing center, where Tait works, which seeks to help Indigenous patients confront colonial trauma.
TC Energy obtained an initial injunction to force Unist’ot’en members to get out of the way of construction in December 2018. Royal Canadian Mounted Police commanders claimed “lethal overwatch” was required, according to documents revealed by The Guardian, and instructed officers to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want.” After the RCMP arrested more than a dozen pipeline opponents that January, a strained peace was established. Police maintained a presence in the area, spending more than $3 million to establish a station halfway up the logging road to the camps. Unist’ot’en members negotiated access for pipeline workers as long as they followed an agreed-upon protocol, but TC Energy claimed the checkpoints continued to slow their work.
In the latest court order, the judge argued that the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s title claims and jurisdiction remained unresolved. In response, pipeline opponents abandoned the access agreement, and the hereditary chiefs demanded that Coastal GasLink vacate the territory immediately.
On February 6, Unist’ot’en members watched on social media as the RCMP mounted a dramatic raid before dawn on a smaller support camp down the road, arresting six people. But rather than serving to quell the resistance, the arrests inspired a wave of solidarity protests and transportation blockades across Canada. Protesters shut down ports, roads, and railways from Vancouver to Saskatchewan, and a blockade set up by Indigenous-led protesters from the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in Ontario halted commuter rail traffic between Montreal and Toronto.
Photo: Amber Bracken
At least 40 officers descended on a second Wet’suwet’en camp on February 7, arresting four Indigenous people who refused to leave. It took another three days for police to move on Unist’ot’en.
On February 10, a helicopter delivered RCMP officers and snowmobiles behind the Unist’ot’en gate. They watched from a hill overlooking the camp as more officers approached from the road. Surrounded on all sides, Tait, her mother, her aunt, and four supporters stood near the barrier, praying and drumming. Tait was the third to be arrested. “Two officers came around me and held my arms to try to prevent me from drumming,” she said. They continued to sing, even as they were loaded into the police van.
While the Canadian government continues to pursue a yearslong effort to heal its relationship with Indigenous people, for many, the arrests of the Unist’ot’en matriarchs were representative of the government’s unwillingness to take meaningful action toward reconciliation — especially when it comes to land rights. Indeed, documents uncovered by journalists and researchers confirm that officials have strategized furiously about how to prevent the Wet’suwet’en people’s assertion of land rights from getting in the way of the message that Canada is open for business.
“The violence of Canada and the emptiness of its commitments to us as Indigenous people were laid bare in their actions, and their forcible removal of us in the midst of ceremony,” Tait said. “The events we experienced leading up to February 10 are another culmination of the efforts of Canada to discredit and criminalize us for simply existing on our land as we always have — for defending our rights to our landbase and our historic economy, our ways of empowering ourselves — because of the threat to the capitalist economy.”
In the wake of the police raids, leaders of the movement declared, “Reconciliation is dead.”
Snow falls at Unist’ot’en camp near Houston, B.C., on Jan. 19, 2020. Photo: Amber Bracken
“An End of Aboriginal Rights and Title”
The Wet’suwet’en Nation has never signed treaties or ceded territory to the Canadian government — a fact that its leaders have defended fiercely in court as well as on the ground. Its hereditary chiefs were behind a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1997 known as Delgamuukw v. The Queen, which recognized the existence of aboriginal title, whereby Indigenous people have the right to “exclusive use and occupation” of territory. However, because of a technicality, the court did not resolve the boundaries of the Wet’suwet’en’s claim to 8,500 square miles of land, stating that title would have to be sought through separate legal or treaty-making proceedings, which were never completed.
Documents obtained by the Canadian publication The Narwhal show that the Delgamuukw decision sent chills through Canadian extractive industries. The documents indicate that the government of British Columbia, a province largely made up of unceded territory, rushed to reassure industry officials, inviting them to provide input on a treaty-making process meant to settle questions over authority on unceded land.
In one memo, describing a meeting held in the wake of the ruling, Marlie Beets, then vice president of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries, told B.C. officials that Indigenous nations must hand over their land to Canada. “The decision makes the need for certainty through surrender all the more clear,” she said. “We see no other alternative.”
Other industries echoed the alarm. “The oil and gas industry in particular has expressed concern about their ability to continue to do business in the province absent a clear direction from the government on how it will address the implications of the Delgamuukw decision,” stated a memo by a Delgamuukw strategy team formed by the government. At a meeting set up by British Columbia’s treaty officials, one lawyer, whose client is unclear, underlined that “what is needed is a clear exchange and an end of Aboriginal rights and title for a defined set of treaty rights.”
First/Top Left: Supporters look on as Wet’suwet’en women sing and pray at the sacred fire outside the healing center on Feb. 6, 2020. Second/Top Right: Wet’suwe’ten family and other supporters gather with Freda Huson, left, in the dining hall at the healing center on Jan. 15, 2020. Third/Bottom Left: Karla Tait beads her regalia on Jan. 20, 2020, hurrying to finish so her mother can wear it in ceremony. Fourth/Bottom Right: Victoria Redsun plays with a puppy at the healing center on Jan. 15, 2020. Photos: Amber Bracken
The Delgamuukw ruling took place just as discussions were coming to a head about how Canada should address the severe harms wrought by its residential schools. For more than a century, Canada had forcibly removed Native children from their families and sent them to remote schools where they were barred from speaking their language and practicing their culture. Many experienced physical and sexual abuse.
As officials were wringing their hands about the court decision, the federal government provided a grant of $350 million to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, meant for survivors of Canada’s residential schools. In a memo to the B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, British Columbia treaty negotiators suggested that the money could be used as leverage. Prioritizing it for First Nations that participated in the negotiations process could “sweeten the deal,” the memo stated.
“There were many ideas put forward as public servants brainstormed about how to move forward. The grant was never used for this purpose,” Sarah Plank, communications director for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, said in a statement to The Intercept. The province’s approach has evolved over the past 20 years, she added, and does not require Indigenous nations to relinquish their rights. Plank described reconciliation as an “all-of-society journey” best achieved with feedback from stakeholders including industry.
The first Unist’ot’en checkpoint was erected a year after the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission created to offer recommendations for how the Canadian government should address the residential system’s impact. With the Unist’ot’en camp sitting in the middle of a planned pipeline corridor meant to bolster Canada’s status as an energy superpower, and with the Delgamuukw case undermining Canada’s attempts to override the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, the stage was set for a clash between reconciliation and fossil fuel interests.
Wet’suwet’en women, joined by Denesuline and Gitxsan supporters, sing at the sacred fire outside of the Unist’ot’en healing center. Photo: Amber Bracken
Stifling the Movement
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have played a key role in Canada’s attempt to protect business interests from Indigenous land claims. The law enforcement agency has closely monitored the Unist’ot’en camp since its inception, labeling those involved with the Wet’suwet’en resistance as extremists. The Aboriginal Policing Services branch of British Columbia’s RCMP circulated regular updates on the camp, keeping tabs on mundane activities such as the construction of a root cellar and garden, according to documents obtained by Andrew Crosby and Jeffrey Monaghan, authors of the book “Policing Indigenous Movements.”
The camp was also targeted by an RCMP surveillance program called Project Sitka. The program was launched in the wake of massive Idle No More protests in 2012 and 2013, which were inspired in part by Indigenous objections to the Northern Gateway pipeline and legislation limiting Indigenous consultation on development projects. Using pseudoscientific methods, the RCMP attempted to predict which participants in Indigenous social movements were most at risk of disruptive or criminal behavior, investigating 300 activists and compiling a list of 89 who merited ongoing monitoring.
Sixteen activists on the Sitka list were from British Columbia, the majority of them involved in the Unist’ot’en camp, according to a 2015 RCMP report. A risk assessment by Canada’s emergency response agency stated that the Unist’ot’en site represented the “ideological and physical focal point of Aboriginal resistance to resource extraction projects” across Canada.
An RCMP spokesperson, Janelle Shoihet, told The Intercept that Project Sitka had concluded. “Project SITKA was designed to specifically separate individuals for whom there was an objective means to demonstrate criminal and violent intentions from those who simply wanted to engage in legitimate protest,” she said. “The RCMP did not specifically target Indigenous protesters.”
Shoihet added that the police agency was committed to a renewed relationship with Indigenous people. “The RCMP’s reconciliation efforts are challenged when our role as a law enforcement agency brings us into potential conflict with Indigenous Peoples, land defenders and supporters,” she said. “RCMP officers are in regular communication with elected and hereditary Indigenous leaders, and protesters to promote constructive dialogue on issues that arise.”
Nevertheless, to many, the RCMP’s involvement in defending the Coastal GasLink project represents another chapter in the agency’s history of enforcing the removal of Indigenous people from land desirable to settlers.
First/Top Left: Pocholo Alen Conception rests with other supporters after waking up early in anticipation of possible police enforcement at Unist’ot’en on Feb. 6, 2020. In a raid that morning, RCMP had arrested six people at a nearby camp, though all were released without charges. Second/Top Right: A Nlaka’pamux supporter pauses after praying at the Wedzin Kwah, or Morice River. In addition to being salmon habitat, the glacial river provides drinking water for the people at Unist’ot’en, and continued access is a major part of their opposition to development in that part of their territory. Third/Bottom Left: Denzel Sutherland-Wilson and Victoria Redsun share a moment before Sutherland-Wilson leaves to hunt. Fourth/Bottom Right: A man hunts for moose in Wet’suwet’en territory. Photos: Amber Bracken
That same year that the RCMP circulated the Sitka watchlist, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its recommendations. Among them was a demand that companies obtain “the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.”
British Columbia has repeatedly pointed to the fact that five out of six Wet’suwet’en elected band councils were among 20 First Nation reserve governments to sign benefits agreements with Coastal GasLink. Seventeen also signed agreements with the B.C. government. But according to Shiri Pasternak, a Ryerson University professor and research director at the First Nation-led Yellowhead Institute, who obtained the documents published by The Narwhal, the agreements for Coastal GasLink were obtained coercively. In one 2015 agreement that Pasternak obtained, British Columbia promised $46 million over 40 years to a First Nation in exchange for consent.
“Here you have the premier of the province justifying over and over again to the public and to First Nations that these projects bring economic prosperity to First Nations, and we shouldn’t stand in the way,” Pasternak said. But it’s no real choice, she added, for communities that have long been starved for resources. “Programs the province and the federal governments have underfunded systemically for decades and decades are contingent now to signing onto these critical infrastructure projects. It’s so morally reprehensible and bankrupt.”
Furthermore, the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs underline that while the elected First Nation governments may have jurisdiction over reserve land, the vast majority of which is not affected by the pipeline, the Delgamuukw ruling and a subsequent court decision affirm that in the traditional territory through which Coastal GasLink passes, it’s the hereditary chiefs whose authority matters.
British Columbia has been in government-to-government discussions with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs about land rights and title for almost a year, Plank, the spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, told The Intercept. However, the agency’s head, Scott Fraser, has stated that rescinding the government’s approval for Coastal GasLink is not on the table.
The spokesperson pointed to the provincial legislature’s recent passage of a bill that enshrines into law the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as evidence of British Columbia’s commitment to reconciliation. But despite the declaration’s language requiring “free, prior, and informed consent” from affected Native people for development projects, Fraser has said the law will not give Indigenous nations veto power over pipelines.
The continued involvement of the RCMP in Wet’suwet’en territory further challenges the province’s efforts to formalize Indigenous land rights. As the president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Okanagan Nation, asserted in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, “Reconciliation cannot be achieved at gunpoint.”
Huson, after police arrived by helicopter across the bridge from the Unist’ot’en healing center on Feb. 8, 2020. “You are trespassing, get away from that gate,” she yelled. “You don’t have consent to enter our territories, you are invaders.” Photo: Amber Bracken
The Blockade Continues
Nearly two weeks after the raid at the Unist’ot’en camp, the remote RCMP station in Wet’suwet’en territory remains active. Although police have not attempted to enter the healing center, they watch its grounds 24/7, said Tait. She and her family were released soon after their arrests, but one of the women arrested on the road, who goes by the name Lady Chainsaw, remained jailed for 11 days, refusing to agree to stop blocking construction.
Solidarity protests have continued, and the Mohawk blockade remains in place. Via Rail said that 100,000 people who rely on the train have had to find other means of travel, while the head of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said that $425 million in products are being stranded daily. Blockade participants say they will not back down unless the RCMP leaves the Wet’suwet’en territory. The police have said they will withdraw, as long as the road remains clear for pipeline workers.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been holding desperate meetings attempting to find a way forward that would appear friendly to Indigenous people as well as the fossil fuel industry. But at news conference on Friday, he stated, “The fact remains the barricades must now come down. The injunctions must be obeyed, and the law must be upheld.”
“It doesn’t come as much of a surprise if Canada is ultimately wishing to continue that agenda of seeking profits and wealth at the cost of human lives and rights,” said Tait. She added that railway disruption is a reminder of the economic devastation wrought by the Canadian government’s centuries of attempting to forcibly access Indigenous people’s land. “It’s really sad that it had to get to this point.”
Photo: Amber Bracken
Update: February 25, 2020
This article has been updated with a statement from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police received after publication.


theintercept--2020-02-23--Culinary Workers Bucked Their Leadership by Backing Bernie Sanders in Nevada. Here’s What They Knew.

battle with the leadership of Nevada ’ s powerful Culinary Union leading into the caucuses on Saturday , Bernie Sanders emerged with a decisive victory — even dominating other candidates among culinary workers themselves , according to entrance surveys .
The big fear expressed by union leadership was the loss of the health care plan workers fought for several years to achieve .
But union members who caucused for Sanders against the advice of their leadership may have been better analysts of their own financial system than pundits expected : Indeed , if Sanders does manage to enact his Medicare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written , their coverage will improve .
A review of the Culinary Union ’ s health plan documents , along with other data sources , shows that it ’ s done an excellent job under difficult circumstances .
The review also shows that the union ’ s members would be much better off under Medicare For All , and that this plan – like virtually every plan – is held back by deep flaws in today ’ s healthcare system .
First , the backstory : The Culinary Union ’ s Local 226 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Culinary Health Fund ( CHF ) for its Las Vegas members .
Union leaders reacted angrily when Sanders , at a town hall , told its members that their employers would save $ 12,000 per employee under Medicare For All , and that they ’ d see that money in their paychecks .
They fired back again after a barrage of online criticism from Sanders supporters .
“ Workers should have the right to choose to keep the healthcare Culinary Union members have built , sacrificed for , and went on strike for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 days to protect , ” union leader Geoconda Argüello-Kline said in a statement .
The union is proud of its health plan , and understandably so .
They fought hard for it , and its coverage outdoes most employer-funded plans .
Still , the union ’ s members would be much better off under Medicare for All .
The same is true for most , and probably all , of today ’ s union plans .
So why are so many people demanding the “ choice ” to keep them – especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst flaws in today ’ s system ?
The Culinary Health Fund has done good work .
The union ’ s plan , as well as the infrastructure it has built , are impressive .
The plan runs its own well-regarded clinics , and some doctors are salaried rather than fee-for-service .
This reduces insurance profit-taking ( the plan likely has some form of reinsurance for especially costly cases ) and removes incentives for physicians to over-treat , a problem that ’ s likely to get worse as investors and hospitals continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make premium contributions from their paychecks .
That doesn ’ t mean the plan is “ free.
” Most economists believe employers compensate for benefit costs by reducing wages .
But it does add a level of predictability to workers ’ household budgets .
This puts the Fund ’ s members well ahead of the curve .
The Kaiser Family Foundation ’ s 2019 survey of employer benefits found that 5 percent of workers in large firms , and 31 percent in smaller firms , pay no portion of their premiums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premium , the average worker with employer-based insurance paid $ 1,242 for single coverage and $ 6,015 for family coverage .
There are no deductibles in this plan , either , which means members don ’ t need to pay a certain amount themselves before coverage kicks in .
Here , too , they ’ re doing well compared to most other workers .
The Kaiser survey reports that 82 percent of workers with employer health insurance have a deductible , and that the average deductible for single coverage is $ 1,655 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Co-pays ( a flat rate per visit or treatment ) and coinsurance ( where the patient pays a percentage of the cost ) are another area of out-of-pocket expense .
Here , too , the CHF plan beats most employer coverage .
There are also no co-payments or coinsurance for in-network primary care or some forms of specialty care .
When these costs occur , co-payments are typically $ 25 for primary doctors and $ 40 per visit for specialists , and coinsurance is typically in the 18 percent range .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ modest when they occur , when compared with other such plans .
There are copayments for in-network hospital and outpatient facility care , but there is no coinsurance .
Again , the plan is ahead of the curve .
Two-third of covered workers in the U.S. must pay coinsurance in these facilities , at an average rate of 20 percent .
That can add up extremely fast .
But its members could do better .
Even this above-average plan falls seriously short of the coverage its members would receive under Medicare For All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay out-of-pocket for their own care is $ 6,350 per person per year , $ 12,700 per family .
That means households covered by the plan are not protected from financial catastrophe .
If the coverage is that good , how could they incur those expenses ?
First , the benefits listed above are for in-network services , and it can be challenging for working people to find in-network providers .
They may have a pre-existing doctor relationship , or may find themselves taken to an out-of-network hospital after an accident .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that can cut both ways when it comes to finding in-network care . )
The employee plan summary warns , “ Be aware , your PPO network provider might use a Non-PPO provider for some services ( such as labwork ) .
Check with your provider before you get services.
” That ’ s not always top of mind for working people who are sick or injured and may need immediate treatment .
In addition , the plan only waives co-insurance and other costs up to “ 100 % of allowable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined by the plan and , while in-network providers can not bill patients for the difference , this can create serious problems in some circumstances .
Provider choice is even more strictly limited for other forms of care .
For example , the Culinary Health Fund provides some of its coverage solely as “ capitated services.
” This is an arrangement where a medical center or other provider serves members on a “ per-capita ” basis .
Plan materials warn that , “ If you need a capitated service , you can only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That is as strict as it gets , and it covers a number of grave conditions .
If for example , you have a form of blood cancer and want to see a specialist who is not part of the plan , this says that you can ’ t .
These programs typically give health providers a financial incentive to keep costs down .
Although contracts normally have some provisions regarding outcomes , too , that ’ s a source for concern .
The fund ’ s capitated service programs include “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ cardiology , ” “ high-risk pregnancy , ” and “ mental health & addictions.
” These specialties routinely deal with life-threatening conditions for patients and families who are already under extreme duress .
The Culinary Health Fund plan imposes another major burden on its enrollees , and it ’ s one that virtually all private-sector health plans in this country place on their members : there is a lot of paperwork and legwork .
The need to find in-network providers is only the beginning .
The plan ’ s “ Forms and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 100 links .
Although some of those links offer employees assistance and education , a lot of administrative functions are represented .
They include a set of ten documents on plan provisions and limitations , a “ Co-payment Book ” listing out-of-pocket costs for various services and providers , and a set of twelve forms .
One of them , the “ appeals form , ” lists eleven categories for appeal including “ late filing , ” “ maximum benefit , ” “ no prior authorization , ” “ non-covered service or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-PPO referral.
” Prior authorization is required for a number of services , as well as for some medications and more costly medical equipment .
This places a burden on both patient and doctor .
Philosopher Ivan Illich coined the term “ shadow work ” to describe the enormous amount of unpaid labor that people are called upon to perform , inside and outside the home .
The administrative burden reflected in these forms is one more category of shadow work that Culinary Health Fund members , and most of us in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perform .
For a union whose members work hard , often for low wages , this burden must not be overlooked .
One form of shadow work that plan members must carry out reflects the economic and health insecurity imposed on them by the current system .
If union members don ’ t work enough hours in any given two months ( 240 hours ) , they are required to pay the cost of their health coverage themselves if they want to keep it .
It ’ s not a simple process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , use an online calculator to determine how many hours they are short , and then pay a per-hour fee for those hours .
If they are short in January , for example , they will need to pay by April 30 to keep coverage through the months of May and June .
If their employers failed to report their hours accurately ( something employers have a financial incentive to do ) , there ’ s an additional process to address that .
Workers must then pay a premium of $ 4.74 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Employees who already live in financial precarity due to unpredictable hours are faced with an additional challenge : either paying an additional cost after working a short month , or take their chances and go without coverage .
And since they already worked shorter hours during that period , they by definition have less money to make those payments .
Here are some of the advantages Fund members would gain by switching to Medicare For All : Plan members would no longer pay any copayments or deductibles .
Plan members would now be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without financial penalty .
Plan members would not have to wonder whether their provider has a financial incentive to provide less treatment ( though they would conceivably have to worry about over-treatment ) .
Plan members would no longer have to fear the insurance-related expense , uncertainty , and paperwork associated with fewer work hours in a month .
Their coverage would no longer depend on their work status .
All that “ shadow work ” would go away .
They would be protected from financial harm caused by the need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insured if they , for some reason , no longer held their union job .
But would plan members really gain $ 12,000 in wages ?
It ’ s not clear where the $ 12,000 figure came from , but the Sanders Medicare For All proposal would require employers to return any savings in health care costs back to their employees in wages or other benefits .
It ’ s hard to know for certain what the employers in this plan are currently paying for health care coverage .
Matt Bruenig of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per hour “ Self Pay ” charge and estimated the total cost of their coverage at $ 9,859 per year .
That ’ s not impossible .
Survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that average PPO premiums in 2018 were $ 7,149 for single coverage and $ 20,324 for family coverage .
A typical split of roughly 50/50 between single and family coverage gives us $ 13,736 as an average premium .
But there are adjustments to be made and unknowns to consider .
Workers in the Fund may be younger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both healthier and more likely to be single than the average employee .
But their plan is also more generous than the average .
If we shift from a 50/50 split of single to family coverage to 75/25 percent single , we wind up with an average premium of $ 10,442 for the Culinary Fund plan – not far from Bruenig ’ s figure .
But if we add in the cost of the plan ’ s more generous benefits , we might find ourselves back with the original , higher figure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ profits off the top like insurers do .
But it does use a third-party administrator ( Zenith American ) to pay claims , and the plan ’ s administrators add another layer of expense .
Without more information , a decent range for their per-employee costs is $ 9,859 to $ 13,736 .
Now for the savings .
The Sanders plan charges employers a 7 percent payroll tax .
The average annual salary for all “ Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations ” in Nevada was $ 26,500 , according to Bureau of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unionized , Las Vegas-based members almost certainly earn more , raising payroll costs .
But they only need to work roughly three quarters of the full-time work hours in a month to retain their employer-funded coverage , which brings the cost back down .
Weighing all that ( have I lost you yet ? )
, let ’ s assume that the average yearly salary for a covered worker in the Fund plan is $ 32,000 , making the average payroll tax $ 2,240 .
Our estimate – with limited data !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 8,202 and $ 11,496 per employee per year under Medicare For All .
That money would be returned to workers under Bernie ’ s plan .
Back to the beef : The higher number is close to Bernie ’ s $ 12,000 , but the lower number clearly isn ’ t .
Still , it ’ s a very decent chunk of change for most working people .
Looking only from the perspective of workers , not union leaders who oversee the fund , it ’ s hard to understand the anger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much , at least among the rank and file , judging from the results of the caucuses .
Why do some union leaders push back against Medicare For All ?
Then why was there such a furious response ?
The health centers administered by the plan have a strong reputation , and they could be funded and maintained under the Sanders plan .
The union could also design other services , and could offer them to its members , their employers , or the single-payer system itself .
So why the pushback ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ context for the Culinary Union ’ s response , but the heat isn ’ t coming from Las Vegas alone .
As Reuters reported in August 2019 , AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka said , “ You can ’ t ask the American worker , who sacrificed wages and everything , to simply say : ‘ Okay , I ’ ll accept this plan here.
’ ” That sounds a lot like the sunk-cost fallacy .
Most workers probably would accept a plan that gives them better benefits , regardless of past history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ some union plans likely provide more benefits than Medicare.
” That ’ s not accurate .
Medicare For All has better benefits than today ’ s Medicare , and a side-by-side comparison with the CHF plan suggests it probably outperforms even the best union plan .
That is probably why other union leaders , like the SEIU ’ s Mary Kay Henry and Sara Nelson of the Association of Flight Attendant ’ s support Medicare For All .
The advocacy group Labor for Single Payer lists twenty-one unions who support it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alive in part by politicians who oppose Medicare For All .
Now , perhaps the union believes it ’ s unreasonable to expect Sanders ’ s Medicare for All plan to be enacted as written , and that some of the generosity will be stripped out as it is whittled down to some version of a public option .
That ’ s not an unreasonable concern — but in such a scenario , the fear they expressed — the loss of their private insurance — would be safely off the table .

Photo: John Locher/AP
Despite a high-profile battle with the leadership of Nevada’s powerful Culinary Workers Union leading into the caucuses on Saturday, Bernie Sanders emerged with a decisive victory — even dominating other candidates among culinary workers themselves, according to entrance surveys.
The big fear expressed by union leadership was the loss of the health care plan workers fought for several years to achieve. But union members who caucused for Sanders against the advice of their leadership may have been better analysts of their own financial system than pundits expected: Indeed, if Sanders does manage to enact his Medicare for All plan as it’s written, their coverage will improve.
A review of the Culinary Union’s health plan documents, along with other data sources, shows that it’s done an excellent job under difficult circumstances. The review also shows that the union’s members would be much better off under Medicare for All, and that this plan — like virtually every plan — is held back by deep flaws in today’s health care system.
First, the backstory: The Culinary Union’s Local 226 administers an employer-funded health plan called the Culinary Health Fund, or CHF for its Las Vegas members. Union leaders reacted angrily when Sanders, at a town hall, told its members that their employers would save $12,000 per employee under Medicare for All, and that they’d see that money in their paychecks. They fired back again after a barrage of online criticism from Sanders supporters.
“Workers should have the right to choose to keep the healthcare Culinary Union members have built, sacrificed for, and went on strike for 6 years, 4 months, and 10 days to protect,” union leader Geoconda Argüello-Kline said in a statement.
The union is proud of its health plan, and understandably so. They fought hard for it, and its coverage outdoes most employer-funded plans. Still, the union’s members would be much better off under Medicare for All. The same is true for most, and probably all, of today’s union plans. So why are so many people demanding the “choice” to keep them — especially if that means preserving some of the worst flaws in today’s system?
The Culinary Health Fund Has Done Good Work
The union’s plan, as well as the infrastructure it has built, are impressive.
The plan runs its own well-regarded clinics, and some doctors are salaried rather than paid by fee-for-service. This reduces insurance profit-taking (the plan likely has some form of reinsurance for especially costly cases) and removes incentives for physicians to over-treat, a problem that’s likely to get worse as investors and hospitals continue to buy up medical practices.
Workers don’t make premium contributions from their paychecks. That doesn’t mean the plan is “free.” Most economists believe employers compensate for benefit costs by reducing wages. But it does add a level of predictability to workers’ household budgets.
This puts the Fund’s members well ahead of the curve. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2019 survey of employer benefits found that 5 percent of workers in large firms, and 31 percent in smaller firms, pay no portion of their premiums. For those that do pay a premium, the average worker with employer-based insurance paid $1,242 for single coverage and $6,015 for family coverage.
There are no deductibles in this plan, either, which means members don’t need to pay a certain amount themselves before coverage kicks in. Here, too, they’re doing well compared to most other workers. The Kaiser survey reports that 82 percent of workers with employer health insurance have a deductible, and that the average deductible for single coverage is $1,655 (rising to $2,271 in small firms).
Copays (a flat rate per visit or treatment) and coinsurance (where the patient pays a percentage of the cost) are another area of out-of-pocket expenses. Here, too, the CHF plan beats most employer coverage. There are also no copayments or coinsurance for in-network primary care or some forms of specialty care. When these costs occur, copays are typically $25 for primary doctors and $40 per visit for specialists, and coinsurance is typically in the 18 percent range. These and other patient costs are relatively modest when they occur, when compared with other such plans.
There are copayments for in-network hospital and outpatient facility care, but there is no coinsurance. Again, the plan is ahead of the curve. Two-third of covered workers in the U.S. must pay coinsurance in these facilities, at an average rate of 20 percent. That can add up extremely fast.
But its members could do better.
Even this above-average plan falls seriously short of the coverage its members would receive under Medicare for All.
The maximum amount CHF members could pay out-of-pocket for their own care is $6,350 per person per year, $12,700 per family. That means households covered by the plan are not protected from financial catastrophe.
If the coverage is that good, how could they incur those expenses? First, the benefits listed above are for in-network services, and it can be challenging for working people to find in-network providers. They may have a preexisting doctor relationship, or may find themselves taken to an out-of-network hospital after an accident. (Provider access is limited in Las Vegas, but that can cut both ways when it comes to finding in-network care.)
The employee plan summary warns, “Be aware, your PPO network provider might use a Non-PPO provider for some services (such as labwork). Check with your provider before you get services.”
That’s not always top of mind for working people who are sick or injured and may need immediate treatment.
In addition, the plan only waives coinsurance and other costs up to “100% of allowable charges.” What charges are allowable is determined by the plan and while in-network providers cannot bill patients for the difference, this can create serious problems in some circumstances.
Provider choice is even more strictly limited for other forms of care. For example, the Culinary Health Fund provides some of its coverage solely as “capitated services.” This is an arrangement where a medical center or other provider serves members on a “per-capita” basis. Plan materials warn that, “If you need a capitated service, you can only visit the capitated provider for that service.” That is as strict as it gets, and it covers a number of grave conditions. If, for example, you have a form of blood cancer and want to see a specialist who is not part of the plan, this says that you can’t.
These programs typically give health providers a financial incentive to keep costs down. Although contracts normally have some provisions regarding outcomes too, that’s a source for concern.
The fund’s capitated service programs include “blood disorder & cancer services,” “cardiology,” “high-risk pregnancy,” and “mental health & addictions.” These specialties routinely deal with life-threatening conditions for patients and families who are already under extreme duress.
Shadow Work
The Culinary Health Fund plan imposes another major burden on its enrollees, and it’s one that virtually all private-sector health plans in this country place on their members: There is a lot of paperwork and legwork.
The need to find in-network providers is only the beginning. The plan’s “Forms and Information” web page alone contains more than 100 links. Although some of those links offer employees assistance and education, a lot of administrative functions are represented. They include a set of 10 documents on plan provisions and limitations, a “Co-payment Book” listing out-of-pocket costs for various services and providers, and a set of 12 forms. One of them, the “appeals form,” lists 11 categories for appeal including “late filing,” “maximum benefit,” “no prior authorization,” “non-covered service or supply,” and “non-PPO to non-PPO referral.”
Prior authorization is required for a number of services, as well as for some medications and more costly medical equipment. This places a burden on both patient and doctor.
Philosopher Ivan Illich coined the term “shadow work” to describe the enormous amount of unpaid labor that people are called upon to perform, inside and outside the home. The administrative burden reflected in these forms is one more category of shadow work that Culinary Health Fund members, and most of us in the current system, are called upon to perform. For a union whose members work hard, often for low wages, this burden must not be overlooked.
Diagnosis: Precarity
One form of shadow work that plan members must carry out reflects the economic and health insecurity imposed on them by the current system. If union members don’t work enough hours in any given two months (240 hours), they are required to pay the cost of their health coverage themselves if they want to keep it.
It’s not a simple process. They must report their hours for those months, use an online calculator to determine how many hours they are short, and then pay a per-hour fee for those hours. If they are short in January, for example, they will need to pay by April 30 to keep coverage through the months of May and June. If their employers failed to report their hours accurately (something employers have a financial incentive to do), there’s an additional process to address that.
Workers must then pay a premium of $4.74 for each lost hour of work. Employees who already live in financial precarity due to unpredictable hours are faced with an additional challenge: either paying an additional cost after working a short month, or take their chances and go without coverage. And since they already worked shorter hours during that period, they by definition have less money to make those payments.
Plan Comparison
Here are some of the advantages Fund members would gain by switching to Medicare for All:
Plan members would no longer pay any copayments or deductibles.
Plan members would now be able to see any provider they choose, without financial penalty.
Plan members would not have to wonder whether their provider has a financial incentive to provide less treatment (though they would conceivably have to worry about over-treatment).
Plan members would no longer have to fear the insurance-related expense, uncertainty, and paperwork associated with fewer work hours in a month. Their coverage would no longer depend on their work status.
All that “shadow work” would go away.
They would be protected from financial harm caused by the need for medical care.
They would still be insured if they, for some reason, no longer held their union job.
But would plan members really gain $12,000 in wages?
It’s not clear where the $12,000 figure came from, but the Sanders Medicare for All proposal would require employers to return any savings in health care costs back to their employees in wages or other benefits.
It’s hard to know for certain what the employers in this plan are currently paying for health care coverage. Matt Bruenig of People’s Policy Project annualized the $4.74 per hour “Self Pay” charge and estimated the total cost of their coverage at $9,859 per year.
That’s not impossible. Survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that average PPO premiums in 2018 were $7,149 for single coverage and $20,324 for family coverage. A typical split of roughly 50/50 between single and family coverage gives us $13,736 as an average premium.
But there are adjustments to be made and unknowns to consider. Workers in the Fund may be younger than average. That would make them both healthier and more likely to be single than the average employee. But their plan is also more generous than the average.
If we shift from a 50/50 split of single to family coverage to 75/25 percent single, we wind up with an average premium of $10,442 for the Culinary Fund plan — not far from Bruenig’s figure. But if we add in the cost of the plan’s more generous benefits, we might find ourselves back with the original, higher figure. The union probably doesn’t take profits off the top like insurers do. But it does use a third-party administrator, Zenith American, to pay claims, and the plan’s administrators add another layer of expense.
Without more information, a decent range for their per-employee costs is $9,859 to $13,736.
Now for the savings. The Sanders plan charges employers a 7 percent payroll tax. The average annual salary for all “Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations” in Nevada was $26,500, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The plan’s unionized, Las Vegas-based members almost certainly earn more, raising payroll costs. But they only need to work roughly three quarters of the full-time work hours in a month to retain their employer-funded coverage, which brings the cost back down.
Weighing all that (have I lost you yet?), let’s assume that the average yearly salary for a covered worker in the Fund plan is $32,000, making the average payroll tax $2,240. Our estimate — with limited data! — is that employers would save between $8,202 and $11,496 per employee per year under Medicare for All. That money would be returned to workers under Bernie’s plan.
Back to the beef: The higher number is close to Bernie’s $12,000, but the lower number clearly isn’t. Still, it’s a very decent chunk of change for most working people. Looking only from the perspective of workers, not union leaders who oversee the fund, it’s hard to understand the anger. Indeed, there may not be much, at least among the rank and file, judging from the results of the caucuses.
Why Do Some Union Leaders Push Back Against Medicare for All?
Then why was there such a furious response? The health centers administered by the plan have a strong reputation, and they could be funded and maintained under the Sanders plan. The union could also design other services, and could offer them to its members, their employers, or the single-payer system itself. So why the pushback?
David Dayen provides some political and institutional context for the Culinary Union’s response, but the heat isn’t coming from Las Vegas alone. As Reuters reported in August 2019, AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka said, “You can’t ask the American worker, who sacrificed wages and everything, to simply say: ‘Okay, I’ll accept this plan here.’”
That sounds a lot like the sunk-cost fallacy. Most workers probably would accept a plan that gives them better benefits, regardless of past history.
According to Reuters, Trumka also noted that “some union plans likely provide more benefits than Medicare.” That’s not accurate. Medicare for All has better benefits than today’s Medicare, and a side-by-side comparison with the CHF plan suggests it probably outperforms even the best union plan.
That is probably why other union leaders, like the SEIU’s Mary Kay Henry and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA’s Sara Nelson, support Medicare for All. The advocacy group Labor for Single Payer lists 21 unions who support it. But the controversy lingers, kept alive in part by politicians who oppose Medicare For All.
Now, perhaps the union believes it’s unreasonable to expect Sanders’s Medicare for All plan to be enacted as written, and that some of the generosity will be stripped out as it is whittled down to some version of a public option. That’s not an unreasonable concern, but in such a scenario, the fear they expressed — the loss of their private insurance — would be safely off the table.


theintercept--2020-02-23--How Young Latinos Delivered Nevada to “Tío Bernie”

caucus-goers began gathering around 10 a.m. at the Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas , Nevada .
It had started raining early in the morning — a rare occurrence in Las Vegas — and didn ’ t lighten up until the rain stopped in the early afternoon .
The high school , whose mascot is a jaguar , is located in a predominantly Latino , working-class neighborhood .
Almost all the caucus-goers were people of color .
The school served as the caucus site for 12 precincts , divided between the cafeteria and the gym .
None of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chair guessed that it was due to the heavy rainstorm earlier that morning — giant puddles spotted the courtyard — and huge early-voter turnout , with some 75,000 votes across the state coming early , compared with a total 86,000 people who caucused in 2016 .
Sen. Bernie Sanders was projected as the winner early by multiple outlets , with former Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg vying for second place .
After the debacle of the Iowa caucuses , observers looked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign remained focused on its major strategy of mobilizing Latino voters , who comprise nearly 30 percent of the state ’ s population .
In the polls leading up to the caucuses , Sanders not only had an overall lead , but he was also the candidate with the greatest share of Latino support , at 33 percent .
While Sanders ’ s polling numbers had remained consistent since the summer , he benefited from a slip by Biden , who was leading among Latino Nevadans at 34 percent in June but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2016 , Sanders received 53 percent of the Latino vote in Nevada .
This year , Sanders redoubled his efforts to win their votes , not only focusing on turnout , but also organizing specifically for the caucuses .
Those efforts — such as holding trainings in Spanish and providing translation services at the caucuses — appear to have paid off .
One such training — for the “ Strip ” caucuses located on Las Vegas ’ s famous main drag so that hotel and casino workers can attend — took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Make the Road Action , an immigrant-rights group .
Conducted entirely in Spanish , a young volunteer explained what a caucus is and how it works .
The group concluded the training with a mock caucus , where they voted between prominent Sanders surrogates such as rappers Cardi B and Killer Mike .
In his victory speech from San Antonio , Texas , Sanders highlighted the support his campaign got from the group .
“ I wan na thank Make the Road and all of the grassroots organizations that helped us win there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s win is also thanks to young Latinos like 19-year-old Christopher Santoyo , who told The Intercept that he ’ s been volunteering for Sanders since he was 15 and worked to convince his family to caucus for the candidate .
“ At first , they actually didn ’ t like him , ” Santoyo said .
“ But I think based off the fact that I ’ ve been so involved in his campaign , and I ’ m directly reaching out to them telling them to vote , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his family into early-voting locations and said he now has elder relatives from coast to coast supporting Sanders .
When asked whether he thought other young people are convincing their parents to vote Sanders , Santoyo said , “ One hundred percent.
” “ I think these ideas are so radical to them .
Like free college or a Green New Deal , Medicare for All .
And then when you actually have a serious conversation as to seeing it through our lens , they really start to change.
” “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically , they ’ re Latino so they listen to Telemundo , Univisión , and more corporate media .
And they kind of echo those talking points .
But when I fight back on it , they ’ re like , ‘ Oh wow , you ’ re right , ’ ” Santoyo said .
“ If you really speak to them , their mind will change.
” While cable networks were wrapping their heads around Sanders ’ s lead ( Chris Matthews compared Sanders ’ s win to France ’ s invasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mood at the actual caucuses was one of hope .
Belén Sisa , the Latino press secretary for Sanders , and Ana Maria Archila , co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy whose political arm endorsed Sanders , both teared up on the sidelines at Desert Pines as the majority of caucus-goers at one of the precincts huddled for Sanders .
“ There are like a vast majority of people sitting in the Bernie side of the caucus , ” Archila told me .
“ Brown people , mostly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible , that it is entirely within our reach to have health care and free college and to end deportations , and I ’ m so moved by the hopefulness of people in a moment of so much darkness , and that ’ s why I ’ m crying.
” For Pablo Montoya , 28 , a first-generation Mexican American and the first of his family to vote , the caucus was an opportunity to represent the entire Latino community .
“ Basically what I ’ m trying to do as well is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population as well , ” he said , “ to the Dreamers , to DACA.
” Montoya supports Sanders , with Warren as his second choice .
Montoya wants to remake the Democratic Party — and he ’ s optimistic about the outcome in Nevada .
“ Basically , I ’ m focusing my choices right now for the people who are more focused on helping millennials at the moment , ” he said , dismissing other candidates like Biden as the party ’ s past .
“ I think Bernie and Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party , with new beliefs , with a new set of rules .
And I really think we ’ re at a point where we can make that happen .
”

On Saturday, caucus-goers began gathering around 10 a.m. at the Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas, Nevada. It had started raining early in the morning — a rare occurrence in Las Vegas — and didn’t lighten up until the rain stopped in the early afternoon.
The high school, whose mascot is a jaguar, is located in a predominantly Latino, working-class neighborhood. Almost all the caucus-goers were people of color. The school served as the caucus site for 12 precincts, divided between the cafeteria and the gym. None of the caucuses were very crowded; a precinct chair guessed that it was due to the heavy rainstorm earlier that morning — giant puddles spotted the courtyard — and huge early-voter turnout, with some 75,000 votes across the state coming early, compared with a total 86,000 people who caucused in 2016.
Sen. Bernie Sanders was projected as the winner early by multiple outlets, with former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg vying for second place. By Sunday night, with 88 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders led every other candidate with 47 percent of the county convention delegates. Biden is a distant second, ending up with around 21 percent of state-level delegates. And entrance polls showed that Sanders was the strong favorite among Latinos, earning 53 percent of their votes.
After the debacle of the Iowa caucuses, observers looked to Nevada with trepidation, but Sanders’s campaign remained focused on its major strategy of mobilizing Latino voters, who comprise nearly 30 percent of the state’s population. In the polls leading up to the caucuses, Sanders not only had an overall lead, but he was also the candidate with the greatest share of Latino support, at 33 percent. While Sanders’s polling numbers had remained consistent since the summer, he benefited from a slip by Biden, who was leading among Latino Nevadans at 34 percent in June but fell to 22 percent support this month. In 2016, Sanders received 53 percent of the Latino vote in Nevada.
Voters, including Dan and Elvia Baca, check in for the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas on Feb. 22, 2020. Photos: Krystal Ramirez for The Intercept
This year, Sanders redoubled his efforts to win their votes, not only focusing on turnout, but also organizing specifically for the caucuses. Those efforts — such as holding trainings in Spanish and providing translation services at the caucuses — appear to have paid off. One such training — for the “Strip” caucuses located on Las Vegas’s famous main drag so that hotel and casino workers can attend — took place Thursday night at the offices of Make the Road Action, an immigrant-rights group. Conducted entirely in Spanish, a young volunteer explained what a caucus is and how it works. The group concluded the training with a mock caucus, where they voted between prominent Sanders surrogates such as rappers Cardi B and Killer Mike.
In his victory speech from San Antonio, Texas, Sanders highlighted the support his campaign got from the group. “I wanna thank Make the Road and all of the grassroots organizations that helped us win there,” he said.
Sanders’s win is also thanks to young Latinos like 19-year-old Christopher Santoyo, who told The Intercept that he’s been volunteering for Sanders since he was 15 and worked to convince his family to caucus for the candidate.
“At first, they actually didn’t like him,” Santoyo said. “But I think based off the fact that I’ve been so involved in his campaign, and I’m directly reaching out to them telling them to vote, they’re supporting Bernie Sanders.” He walked some of his family into early-voting locations and said he now has elder relatives from coast to coast supporting Sanders.
Voters wait for the tally at the caucus at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas. Sanders supporters are gathered on the left, while on the right was the sole supporter for Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Photo: Krystal Ramirez for The Intercept
When asked whether he thought other young people are convincing their parents to vote Sanders, Santoyo said, “One hundred percent.”
“I think these ideas are so radical to them. Like free college or a Green New Deal, Medicare for All. And then when you actually have a serious conversation as to seeing it through our lens, they really start to change.”
“A lot of them, especially my family specifically, they’re Latino so they listen to Telemundo, Univisión, and more corporate media. And they kind of echo those talking points. But when I fight back on it, they’re like, ‘Oh wow, you’re right,’” Santoyo said. “If you really speak to them, their mind will change.”
While cable networks were wrapping their heads around Sanders’s lead (Chris Matthews compared Sanders’s win to France’s invasion by the Nazi army on MSNBC), the mood at the actual caucuses was one of hope.
Voters gather for the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas, including Angelica Romero, left/top, and Ana Maria Archila, right/bottom. Photos: Krystal Ramirez for The Intercept
Belén Sisa, the Latino press secretary for Sanders, and Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy whose political arm endorsed Sanders, both teared up on the sidelines at Desert Pines as the majority of caucus-goers at one of the precincts huddled for Sanders.
“There are like a vast majority of people sitting in the Bernie side of the caucus,” Archila told me. “Brown people, mostly, who believe that a new world is possible, that it is entirely within our reach to have health care and free college and to end deportations, and I’m so moved by the hopefulness of people in a moment of so much darkness, and that’s why I’m crying.”
Listen to what @AnaMariaArchil2 of Center for Popular Democracy Action
said when I asked her why she was crying at one of the Nevada caucuses pic.twitter.com/4MxsSvZCFP — aída chávez (@aidachavez) February 22, 2020
For Pablo Montoya, 28, a first-generation Mexican American and the first of his family to vote, the caucus was an opportunity to represent the entire Latino community. “Basically what I’m trying to do as well is to give a voice to the Latino population as well,” he said, “to the Dreamers, to DACA.” Montoya supports Sanders, with Warren as his second choice.
Montoya wants to remake the Democratic Party — and he’s optimistic about the outcome in Nevada. “Basically, I’m focusing my choices right now for the people who are more focused on helping millennials at the moment,” he said, dismissing other candidates like Biden as the party’s past. “I think Bernie and Warren are ready to start a new Democratic Party, with new beliefs, with a new set of rules. And I really think we’re at a point where we can make that happen.”
Update: February 23, 2020
This story has been updated with Nevada county convention delegate counts, with 88 percent of precincts reporting as of Sunday evening.


theintercept--2020-02-24--A Crop of Dark-Money Groups Is Backing Democratic Efforts to Retake the Senate

to flip a number of competitive Senate seats this November , they ’ re relying on a network of undisclosed donors to match the GOP ’ s massive funding apparatus .
At a time when swearing off so-called dark money is something of a litmus test in the party , at least six races where candidates have the backing of national Democrats are seeing major funding from super PACs , whose donors will not have to be disclosed .
In their longshot bid to take control of the upper chamber , Democrats are focusing on races races in Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , Maine , Texas , and Kentucky , and are also putting resources toward races in South Carolina , Tennessee , and Georgia .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has backed candidates in all of those races .
The Senate Majority PAC , the largest Democratic super PAC to focus on Senate races , is running ads in a number of those states as well .
The PAC , which is aligned with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , announced in February it would partner with another Democratic PAC , Priorities USA Action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Arizona , Maine , and North Carolina .
Their efforts are being supplemented by a number of new , smaller , dark-money groups that have spent around $ 7 million so far on ads in six Senate races .
The four state-level groups are linked to one another and to Majority Forward , a 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) nonprofit group affiliated with Senate Majority PAC , and they also share a network of Democratic staffers and strategists .
The president of Senate Majority PAC , JB Poersch , used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DSCC — and remains a close ally of Schumer .
He did not respond to requests for comment .
The groups , which are operating in Iowa , Arizona , Colorado , and Maine as 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) s , are not required to disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission , but will have to report top contribution amounts when they file form 990s with the IRS after the 2020 election .
Their spending comprises just a fraction of the money put forward by Senate-affiliated groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of money for entities that were formed less than a year ago and bill themselves as grassroots groups .
OpenSecrets noted in December that the four state-level groups might be linked to one another .
According to state tax records , all four groups used Washington , D.C.-based CT Corporation System as their registered agent , a firm offering agent and incorporation services .
In addition , they were all set up around the same time last spring , and share some of the same advisers .
Additionally , the super PACs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Forward , which has spent an additional $ 7 million on ads in states including Maine , North Carolina , Michigan , Arizona , Iowa , and Colorado .
The Maine group has partnered with an organization that has contributed to Majority Forward , while a leader of the Arizona group has appeared in a Majority Forward ad .
Maine Momentum has spent at least $ 2 million in ads against Republican Sen. Susan Collins since launching in April .
The PAC has a number of prominent Maine Democrats among its ranks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a former spokesperson for Democratic U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree .
Chris Glynn , who served as former spokesperson for the Maine Democratic Party and also worked for Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon , was a spokesperson for Maine Momentum until last year .
Gideon is now running for Senate , and the DSCC endorsed her in June .
Maine Momentum has worked in parallel to Gideon ’ s campaign , with a program called the “ 16 Counties Coalition , ” launched in July to pressure Collins on issues of high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also pushed Collins to hold a town hall , which she hasn ’ t done for 20 years .
The group held a joint event in Portland last year with a group called Tax March ( also called the Sixteen Thirty Fund ) , which is a key funder of Democratic causes and super PACs .
It gave Majority Forward $ 500,000 in 2016 , and also donated $ 500,000 to the House Majority PAC and at least $ 1 million to the Senate Majority PAC .
Asked if Maine Momentum received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the group did not discuss its donors .
Advancing Arizona launched in April and has spent at least $ 1.8 million on ads in the state targeting Republican Sen. Martha McSally and her vote to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act .
The group , which also goes by Honest Arizona , is run by James Oman , a former businessman who maintains a low profile ; Steve Gomez , an activist in the state ; and one-term Democratic Rep. and former state party chair Sam Coppersmith , now practicing real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coppersmith also belongs to Issue One ’ s ReFormers Caucus , a bipartisan coalition of former officials advocating for “ solutions to fix our broken political system.
” Gomez appeared in a 2018 Majority Forward ad criticizing McSally on health care .
One of its board members is also on staff at Forward Majority Action , a federal PAC launched by Democrats in 2017 to focus on regaining power in state legislative races .
A spokesperson for Coppersmith did not respond to requests for comment .
Iowa Voices , which also operates as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target Republican Sen. Joni Ernst .
The group ’ s incorporator , Drew Cooper , first opened it under the name Heartland Forward , and changed its name in May .
Cooper worked on former Maryland Gov .
Martin O ’ Malley ’ s 2015 presidential campaign .
Iowa Voices is run by Emily Holley , former political director for state Sen .
Rob Hogg and a Midwest field organizer for the 2008 Obama campaign .
In July , just months after its launch , Iowa Voices purchased $ 600,000 worth of ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December , that number went up to $ 1.4 million .
Holley did not respond to a request for comment .
Rocky Mountain Values launched in Colorado in May , and by January had spent more than $ 1.8 million on ads targeting Republican Sen. Cory Gardner .
The group ’ s executive director , Alvina Vasquez , was political director for Democratic Gov .
Jared Polis ’ s 2018 campaign .
Communications director Vanessa Harmoush said the group is “ a grassroots organization , ” and she did not respond to questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national level that is also linked to Majority Forward , VoteVets Action Fund , is backing North Carolina Senate candidate Cal Cunningham against Republican Sen. Thom Tillis .
The group has spent close to $ 3.3 million on ads supporting Cunningham , whom the DSCC endorsed in October .
The group is also supporting Democratic Sen. Gary Peters in Michigan , where it ’ s spent at least $ 2.1 million on ads so far ; MJ Hegar against Republican Sen. John Cornyn in Texas , where it ’ s spent $ 3.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky , where it ’ s spent $ 119,000 so far .
( The group is also backing presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg , and has spent at least $ 1.7 million supporting him thus far .
A campaign finance group has accused the Buttigieg campaign of improperly coordinating with VoteVets , and the campaign has declined to comment on that charge . )
In 2018 , VoteVets Action Fund received $ 1.89 million from Majority Forward .
Senate Majority PAC President JB Poersch tweeted this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharing an article about a PAC supporting Democratic candidate Erica Smith , who had also sought the DSCC ’ s endorsement , that has GOP ties .
Majority Forward , in addition to supporting VoteVets , in late January launched a six-figure ad buy against Collins , Ernst , McSally , Gardner , and Tillis .
The group has spent at least $ 780,000 on statewide ads slamming Collins on prescription drug pricing , close to $ 100,000 each against Tillis , Gardner , McSally , and Georgia Sen. David Perdue in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races , candidates Democrats are backing have made campaign finance a central issue of their platforms , calling for enhanced transparency and disclosure requirements .

As Democrats seek to flip a number of competitive Senate seats this November, they’re relying on a network of undisclosed donors to match the GOP’s massive funding apparatus. At a time when swearing off so-called dark money is something of a litmus test in the party, at least six races where candidates have the backing of national Democrats are seeing major funding from super PACs, whose donors will not have to be disclosed.
In their longshot bid to take control of the upper chamber, Democrats are focusing on races races in Arizona, Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Maine, Texas, and Kentucky, and are also putting resources toward races in South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has backed candidates in all of those races. The Senate Majority PAC, the largest Democratic super PAC to focus on Senate races, is running ads in a number of those states as well. The PAC, which is aligned with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, announced in February it would partner with another Democratic PAC, Priorities USA Action, to run a multimillion-dollar ad campaign in Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina.
Their efforts are being supplemented by a number of new, smaller, dark-money groups that have spent around $7 million so far on ads in six Senate races. The four state-level groups are linked to one another and to Majority Forward, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group affiliated with Senate Majority PAC, and they also share a network of Democratic staffers and strategists. The president of Senate Majority PAC, JB Poersch, used to head up both Majority Forward and the DSCC — and remains a close ally of Schumer. He did not respond to requests for comment.
The groups, which are operating in Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, and Maine as 501(c)(4)s, are not required to disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, but will have to report top contribution amounts when they file form 990s with the IRS after the 2020 election. Their spending comprises just a fraction of the money put forward by Senate-affiliated groups, but they have dropped a remarkable amount of money for entities that were formed less than a year ago and bill themselves as grassroots groups.
OpenSecrets noted in December that the four state-level groups might be linked to one another. According to state tax records, all four groups used Washington, D.C.-based CT Corporation System as their registered agent, a firm offering agent and incorporation services. In addition, they were all set up around the same time last spring, and share some of the same advisers.
Additionally, the super PACs in Maine and Arizona have connections to Majority Forward, which has spent an additional $7 million on ads in states including Maine, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Iowa, and Colorado. The Maine group has partnered with an organization that has contributed to Majority Forward, while a leader of the Arizona group has appeared in a Majority Forward ad.
Maine
Maine Momentum has spent at least $2 million in ads against Republican Sen. Susan Collins since launching in April. The PAC has a number of prominent Maine Democrats among its ranks. Its executive director, Willy Ritch, is a former spokesperson for Democratic U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree. Chris Glynn, who served as former spokesperson for the Maine Democratic Party and also worked for Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, was a spokesperson for Maine Momentum until last year. Gideon is now running for Senate, and the DSCC endorsed her in June. Maine Momentum has worked in parallel to Gideon’s campaign, with a program called the “16 Counties Coalition,” launched in July to pressure Collins on issues of high importance with moderate voters. The coalition has also pushed Collins to hold a town hall, which she hasn’t done for 20 years.
The group held a joint event in Portland last year with a group called Tax March (also called the Sixteen Thirty Fund), which is a key funder of Democratic causes and super PACs. It gave Majority Forward $500,000 in 2016, and also donated $500,000 to the House Majority PAC and at least $1 million to the Senate Majority PAC. Asked if Maine Momentum received any funding from Majority Forward, Ritch said the group did not discuss its donors.
Photo: Rick Scuteri/AP
Arizona
Advancing Arizona launched in April and has spent at least $1.8 million on ads in the state targeting Republican Sen. Martha McSally and her vote to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act. The group, which also goes by Honest Arizona, is run by James Oman, a former businessman who maintains a low profile; Steve Gomez, an activist in the state; and one-term Democratic Rep. and former state party chair Sam Coppersmith, now practicing real estate law at an Arizona firm. Coppersmith also belongs to Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus, a bipartisan coalition of former officials advocating for “solutions to fix our broken political system.” Gomez appeared in a 2018 Majority Forward ad criticizing McSally on health care. One of its board members is also on staff at Forward Majority Action, a federal PAC launched by Democrats in 2017 to focus on regaining power in state legislative races. A spokesperson for Coppersmith did not respond to requests for comment.
Iowa
Iowa Voices, which also operates as Iowa Forward, launched in March to target Republican Sen. Joni Ernst. The group’s incorporator, Drew Cooper, first opened it under the name Heartland Forward, and changed its name in May. Cooper worked on former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s 2015 presidential campaign. Iowa Voices is run by Emily Holley, former political director for state Sen. Rob Hogg and a Midwest field organizer for the 2008 Obama campaign. In July, just months after its launch, Iowa Voices purchased $600,000 worth of ads targeting Ernst in Iowa. As of December, that number went up to $1.4 million. Holley did not respond to a request for comment.
Colorado
Rocky Mountain Values launched in Colorado in May, and by January had spent more than $1.8 million on ads targeting Republican Sen. Cory Gardner. The group’s executive director, Alvina Vasquez, was political director for Democratic Gov. Jared Polis’s 2018 campaign. Communications director Vanessa Harmoush said the group is “a grassroots organization,” and she did not respond to questions about its donors.
A fifth group operating at the national level that is also linked to Majority Forward, VoteVets Action Fund, is backing North Carolina Senate candidate Cal Cunningham against Republican Sen. Thom Tillis. The group has spent close to $3.3 million on ads supporting Cunningham, whom the DSCC endorsed in October. The group is also supporting Democratic Sen. Gary Peters in Michigan, where it’s spent at least $2.1 million on ads so far; MJ Hegar against Republican Sen. John Cornyn in Texas, where it’s spent $3.3 million so far; and Amy McGrath against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, where it’s spent $119,000 so far. (The group is also backing presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, and has spent at least $1.7 million supporting him thus far. A campaign finance group has accused the Buttigieg campaign of improperly coordinating with VoteVets, and the campaign has declined to comment on that charge.)
In 2018, VoteVets Action Fund received $1.89 million from Majority Forward. Senate Majority PAC President JB Poersch tweeted this month about the North Carolina Senate race, sharing an article about a PAC supporting Democratic candidate Erica Smith, who had also sought the DSCC’s endorsement, that has GOP ties.
Majority Forward, in addition to supporting VoteVets, in late January launched a six-figure ad buy against Collins, Ernst, McSally, Gardner, and Tillis. The group has spent at least $780,000 on statewide ads slamming Collins on prescription drug pricing, close to $100,000 each against Tillis, Gardner, McSally, and Georgia Sen. David Perdue in their respective states. In several of those races, candidates Democrats are backing have made campaign finance a central issue of their platforms, calling for enhanced transparency and disclosure requirements.