Navajo Nation Spokesman Calls Tom Steyer’s Green Energy Campaign A ‘Slap In The Face’

NextGen Climate Action and Pinnacle West have spent millions over Proposition 127, a ballot initiative that calls for Arizona to dramatically increase its renewable energy mandate. Navajo Nation leaders have come out in sharp opposition to Proposition 127, saying that the mandate would essentially eliminate many of the energy jobs they depend on. Carlyle Begay, a Navajo Nation leader and former Arizona state senator, didn’t hold back in his criticism of the backers behind the initiative, whom he says did not consult with tribal leaders in drafting the proposal.

Navajo Nation leaders are not supportive of Tom Steyer’s campaign to force Arizona into dramatically increasing its renewable energy mandate, a mandate they argue would financially ruin their community. Arizona voters will head to the polls on Tuesday to decide the fate of Proposition 127, a ballot initiative that would mandate utility companies acquire half their electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, by 2030. The proposal would amend the state’s constitution and be a sharp increase from its current renewable mandate — which stands at 15 percent by 2025.

The fight over Prop 127 pits two forces against each other: Steyer and Pinnacle West. Steyer, a billionaire environmental activist from California, has funneled upwards of $18 million to promote the initiative through his own national organization, NextGen Climate Action. Pinnacle West — the parent company of Arizona Public Service, the largest electric utility company in the state — has spent more to oppose it. Beyond the 300 elected officials and more than 100 community groups that have come out in opposition to the renewable energy initiative, one other major Arizona constituency has a strong opinion: the Navajo Nation.

Nestled in the northeastern corner of Arizona and reaching into New Mexico and Utah as well, the Navajo Nation earns the title as the largest Native American reservation in the U.S. Its population of more than 350,000 work in an array of different jobs, with a substantial amount of their income related to the energy sector. The majority of employees currently working in the Navajo Generating Station, Kayenta Mine and the Four Corners Generating Station, for example, are made up Navajo Nation members. Should Prop 127 pass, many of the power generation jobs these Native Americans work in would be put at risk — dealing a heavy blow to a community that is already beleaguered with poverty and high unemployment. Because of this, Navajo Nation leaders have come out in strong opposition to Steyer’s renewable energy campaign. “Our frustration, from the Navajo Nation’s perspective, is the devastation that this would mean, socially and economically, for those in Arizona and to the Navajo Nation specifically,” Carlyle Begay said in a conversation on Oct. 23 with The Daily Caller News Foundation. Begay is a prominent member of the Navajo Nation reservation. He served in the Arizona state Senate from 2013 to 2017, making a name for himself as an independent-minded legislator. Begay now serves as a spokesman for Navajo Nation as its leadership fights against Prop 127. “Our Navajo Nation economy is largely based on our natural resources that bless our lands. These resources provide essential government functions for our people and represents thousands of high-paying Navajo Nation jobs,” Begay explained.

https://www.dailycaller.com/2018/10/31/navajo-nation-tom-steyer-energy-arizona/

>>3683521

He did…and funny thing happened…Steyer just threw his money down the toilet..kek

SCOTUS Hears Case Against Google Giving Away Settlement Money to Friends

'Frank v. Gaos' could seriously change class-action law

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in a case in which the plaintiffs allege that Google took advantage of a feature of class-action law to funnel millions in settlement funds to friendly universities and programs while leaving nothing for consumers. If successful the suit could, as Manhattan Institute director of legal policy James Copland put it, stop trial lawyers from "dol[ing] out clients' money as treats to their favorite charities."

The case, Frank v. Gaos, grew out of a class-action lawsuit brought by appellees Paloma Gaos, Anthony Italiano, and Gabriel Priyev on behalf of 129 million consumers against Google. That case, Gaos v. Google, claimed that Google had violated the class's privacy rights by "leaking" search terms to third-party marketers in contravention of its own privacy policy. This happened, they argued, because Google transmitted the search terms used to reach a site to that site. Therefore, if a search term included identifying information (e.g., a person's name), a user would be deanonymized to third parties. After four days of negotiations, the two sides reached a settlement of $8.5 million, as well as some changes to Google's FAQ explaining its use of "referral headers." Both parties agreed that attorneys' fees and administrative costs—totaling about $3.2 million—would be withdrawn from the settlement fund, leaving approximately $5.3 million for the consumers—about four cents per person. This is where things get messy. Because of the small size of the payout-per-consumer, the federal district court decided that instead of paying each class member, the proceeds would instead be distributed through what's called a cy pres award (pronounced "sigh pray"). Cy pres is a process by which some portion of a class-action settlement is disbursed to charitable organizations rather than class members. Because of the size of the Gaos class, the settlement designated six recipients who got most of the remaining funds—class members themselves got nothing.

What is more, several of those cy pres recipients—Harvard, Stanford, the AARP, and the Chicago-Kent School of Law—had a preexisting relationship with Google. And three of the recipients were almae matres of the class attorneys who signed the settlement. This effectively meant that both sides transferred money to parties they had an interest in, rather than the consumers who were ostensibly meant to be remunerated for harm done to them. It was this situation—$5 million for friends of Google and the class lawyers, nothing for consumers—that prompted class members Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak, both attorneys at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and members of the Gaos v. Google class, to sue Gaos and Google in what is now Frank v. Gaos. "This case is really about attorneys selling out their clients," Holyoak told the Washington Free Beacon. "We are arguing that this is unfair, and this is an abuse of the class action system, and an abuse of the cy pres system."

https://freebeacon.com/issues/scotus-hears-case-google-giving-away-settlement-money-friends/