Harvey Wasserman, AlterNet & Democracy Now, Feb. 2010, on Obama and the nuclear-energy lobby

Harvey Wasserman
Nuclear Energy's Comeback Is Fueled By Lobbying Dollars, Not By Safer or Better Technology
Over 10 years, the industry has spent $1 million per every U.S. Senator and Representative, plus another $100 million for the White House, courts and media.
February 25, 2010


But $645 million---SIX HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION---can buy a lot of opinion going one way, and suppresses a lot going the other. Op eds, air time, "independent" reports, phony claims that "green" nukes can solve global warming…not to mention campaign "donations," fact-finding junkets, political fundraisers, K-Street dinners…all can be had for a trifling drip from the mega-slush fund.

The latest payback is Barack Obama's $8.33 billion in promised loan guarantees for two new nukes proposed in Georgia. Two old ones came in at 3000% over budget at a site where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warns the proposed new ones might crumble in an earthquake or hurricane.

As Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! points out, Team Obama has taken VERY goodly chunks of that $645 million from Chicago's nuke-loving Exelon. Despite his campaign hype for a green revolution, Obama's first two named advisors, David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel, were proud Exelon "associates."

Now Obama wants taxpayers to pony up $36 billion MORE in loan guarantees. (John McCain wants a mere trillion).

February 18, 2010
"A Bad Day for America": Anti-Nuclear Activist Harvey Wasserman Criticizes Obama Plan to Fund Nuclear Reactors

-snip-

HARVEY WASSERMAN: -snip-

And it’s interesting, because we started off with Van Jones. We started off with an industry that was going to make these strides forward. And now we see a complete reversal on the part of the Obama administration. The only explanation we have is that Obama was an Illinois politician. He was backed by Exelon, which is a major nuclear utility. And he seems to have basically completely abandoned the premise on which he was elected, that he would lead a green power revolution. And now he’s gone to an obsolete, dangerous technology with no solution to the nuclear waste problem. You know, Amy, he’s established a commission.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Harvey?

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Harvey, if I can, you mentioned the issue of Exelon, and I think that when you say that folks in the progressive movement are surprised, I wonder how surprised they should be, because I remember back during the presidential primary writing a column about the close ties between Exelon—Exelon is not just a nuclear power industry generator, it’s the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the United States. I think it has seventeen. And the firm was a major—has historically been a major backer of President Obama. And two of his chief aides have ties to Exelon. Rahm Emanuel, as an investment banker, helped put together the deal that eventually merged, created Exelon. And David Axelrod was a lobbyist for Exelon. So there are very close ties between the chairman of Exelon, John Rowe, and the Obama administration. I think even Forbes Magazine listed it, talked about those ties. So I think that the President was very equivocal on the issue of nuclear power during the campaign, but that there was no—there seemed to be—the industry believed he was going to be their salvation.

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, he’s certainly come through for his backers at Exelon there. And it’s a tragedy for him and for the administration, but most importantly, for the American people. We’re seeing the corporate interests flooding through this administration, getting pretty much what they want. And in this case, Obama has done a tremendously destructive about-face of taking the technology of the failed—of a failed technology from the twentieth century and trying to use taxpayer, ratepayer money to foist this on the economy.

-snip-