In an explosive first-hand account, ecosystem biologist Linda Hooper-Bui describes how Obama administration and BP lawyers are making independent scientific analysis of the Gulf region an impossibility. Hooper-Bui has found that only scientists who are part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process to determine BP’s civil liability get full access to contaminated sites and research data. Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist and Department of Interior NRDA coordinator, admitted to The Scientist that “researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a contract that includes a confidentiality agreement” that “prevents signees from releasing information from studies and findings until authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified date.” Hooper-Bui writes:

It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the environmental impact of the catastrophe.

Hooper-Bui’s depictions of samples confiscated by US Fish and Wildlife officials and expeditions blocked by local law enforcement is consistent with the steady stream of reports about obstruction, censorship, and confusion under BP’s private army of contractors. A full and open scientific assessment of the effects of the BP disaster is crucial for the health of the ecosystem and the residents of this American jewel.

As the debate over whether the 14th amendment should be changed to deny the American-born children of undocumented immigrants citizenship has dragged on over the past few weeks, Florida senatorial candidate and tea party darling, Marco Rubio (R), has remained curiously silent — until today. Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel reports that he received an email from Rubio’s campaign aide, Alex Burgos, confirming Rubio’s opposition to changing the 14th amendment:

I noted that this is putting Senate candidate Marco Rubio in a pickle. The crusade against illegal immigration is interpreted by many Hispanics as a crusade against Hispanics. It has resulted in a shift of Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party. Here is a story about the impact in Florida. The press has been pressing Rubio to come out with a position since last week, particularly since Charlie Crist came out strongly against tinkering with the amendment. I wrote that Rubio’s failure to come out against changes could let Crist outflank him with Hispanic voters.

Rubio’s campaign aide, Alex Burgos, has sent me an e-mail saying Rubio also does not favor altering the amendment. But there is no press release or official statement. So it’s not like Rubio is shouting it from the rooftops. “He simply doesn’t support changes and believes we should focus on securing the border and enforcing existing laws,” Burgo said.

As Thomas notes, Rubio — the son of Cuban immigrants — hasn’t exactly taken a strong position against the GOP’s attack on the 14th amendment. His opponents, however, have. According to Florida senatorial candidate Jeff Greene (D), “if you’re born here, you’re a citizen.” Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek similarly stated, “Yes, you could definitely say I’m opposed” to changing the 14th amendment. Rubio’s biggest foe, current Gov. Charlie Crist (I), has been firm in his opposition, stating “That would be unconscionable to me. [...] The 14th Amendment ought to stay the way it is. If someone is born in the United States of America, you are an American. That is a tradition of our country. That’s the way it should always be, that’s the way it’s always been. And that’s what America is all about.”

In an interview yesterday, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R) said “what I want to convince voters of is I am the very best person to fix the economy in California.” “I am not actually a politician. I am a businessperson. I have created jobs, I have met budgets, I have done, figured out how to do more with less, and that is actually a really important thing for the state right now,” she said.

However, according to a new Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis by Michael Reich, an Economics Professor at The University of California at Berkeley, Whitman’s economic plan — outlined in Meg 2010, Building a New California — is “likely to have negative effects on jobs and economic growth and to deepen the state’s budget crisis.”

“She claims to have a plan that’s very detailed and based on careful research. But it really isn’t careful at all, and it’s misguided,” Reich said. “It has a lot of incorrect assumptions. A lot of studies she draws on are useless or kind of misleading and don’t agree with well-accepted economic research.” Whitman’s plan consists of:

– Tax cuts for wealthy people and businesses — including eliminating the state’s capital gains tax — which would “reduce the state’s economic growth while exacerbating the state’s budget deficit problem.”

– Eliminating climate change regulations, which “could bring positive harm to the environment, would sharply reduce clean-tech venture capital spending in the state, and would reduce employment.”

– Spending cuts that “would have negative consequences on employment.”

Whitman likes to make a big show of her determination to cut spending, stating that “I have identified $15 billion worth of spending cuts that we can go after over a couple of years.” However, the California budget deficit for the coming fiscal year alone stands at $20 billion, and it’s only going to grow if her tax cut plan is implemented.

According to Reich, the state will lose $6-$10 billion in revenue depending on how Whitman implements her tax plan. And her spending plan “does not specify” where most of her proposed budget cuts will fall. But since most of California’s general fund spending is in education, health and human services, and prisons, it stands to reason that those areas would see the most severe budget cutbacks.

A group of 20 California economists signed a letter today stating that “the evidence and theory that Whitman uses to diagnose California’s problems are unscientific and an unsound basis for policy. As a result, her diagnosis and her proposed economic policies are both deeply flawed…If implemented, Whitman’s program would worsen California’s budget malaise and its economic performance.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.