Media outlet refuses to run GOP’s TV ad filled with falsehoods on clean energy bill

The NY Times takes cash from ExxonMobil to publish its lies on the front page.  The Washington Post was on the verge of offering lobbyists off-the-record access to the “powerful few” for $250,000 (!) “” until the Politico (and others) called them out.  But there still are a few media outlets that won’t sell their integrity for a few pieces of silver, as this Think Progress post explains.

Yesterday afternoon, Roanoke television station WDBJ-TV, announced they will be refusing to air a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad attacking freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), citing factual inaccuracies. The NRCC had been planning to run television ads against Democratic members of Congress, like Perriello, who voted for the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation that passed last week. After receiving information about the factual inaccuracies in the ad, the station pulled it from rotation.

For any objective observer, the the ad is pulled out of thin air. The ads erroneously state that the bill will “destroy jobs” and “cost middle-class families $1,800 a year.” According to a study by the Center for American Progress, clean energy economy legislation will create 1.7 million American jobs while simultaneously addressing climate change by capping carbon dioxide emissions. The $1,800 figure used by NRCC is also made of whole cloth. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill and found that by 2020, the annual cost would be about $175 per household “” about a postage stamp a day. An EPA estimate of the bill found similar results, projecting the cost to be about $80 to $111 per a year.

Still refusing to accept reality, the Republican leadership is instructing its members to lie about the clean energy economy bill:

– Last week, Republican whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) posted a message erroneously claiming that clean energy legislation will amount to “a national energy tax of up to $3,100 on all Americans.”

– Republican leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) posted on his website that the clean energy bill will cost “$3,100 a year,” then modified that number to “$3,000 per household per year.”

– Republican conference chair Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), not to be outdone, claimed the clean energy bill would be “over $4,000 a year.”

All the numbers cited by Republicans are at least seventeen times the highest possible projection by the CBO and EPA.

Clearly, Republicans opposed to the clean energy bill seem willing to justify their opposition using outright falsehoods. But fortunately, at least some stations are not willing to propagate it.

Related Posts:

12 Responses to Media outlet refuses to run GOP’s TV ad filled with falsehoods on clean energy bill

  1. paulm says:

    Global warming affects apples…

    iPhones die in hot cars: Apple blames heatwave for handset breakdowns

  2. Leland Palmer says:

    I hate to post this, because it might undermine my credibility on this site.

    [JR: To paraphrase my editor father, who liked to quote Ed Asner’s portrayal of an editor, “I’m going to do you a favor and not publish the rest of this.]

  3. Leland Palmer says:

    Thanks, Joe :)

    Do yourself a favor, and read the link provided.

  4. John Pearson says:

    I dont think it matters what the climate bill will or will not cost. the fact is we need to cut emissions quickly and deeply, end of story. the facts are clear, the costs are not. it makes little sense to discuss a few dollars here or there, the fact is our energy use must become sustainable, if it costs 5$ a gallon to do that, thats what it costs.

  5. Jeremiah says:

    New study, Clean Energy Legislation will cost the average American $2,980,000 a day.

  6. paulm says:

    well that’s a tease! What have we missed?

  7. ken levenson says:

    Right on Jeremiah….

    One could add: The Clean Energy Bill will destroy the sanctity of traditional marriage and void the Second Amendment – thereby destroying America.

  8. Study, after study, after old study says: doing nothing makes it worse — assuring complete destruction, within just a few generations. Doing nothing HAS made it worse.

    Business-as-usual is certain death.

    Where is the Republican solution? Or anyone’s solution? This is just the first try at addressing the problem.

    Right now there are twin approaches of adaptation and mitigation.

    Denying the problem is an unacceptable approach.

    Drilling cheap oil is NOT a solution. Nor is burning coal. So what are you going to do about global heating and climate destabilization?

    Is there some other way to meet this danger? Saying it is not a danger does not work. Any breaking the rules of science will not work either.

    Ignorance and denial does not work for my kids.

    Until you realize the problem, you look really stupid trying to even talk about a solution.

    The problem you are trying to fix is your lack of money.

    Sorry, but we are not addressing that problem right now. But if you have a better survival plan than this, please speak up.

  9. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi paulm-

    I can’t really fault Joe’s judgement. It is pretty wild.

    Don’t discuss it here.

  10. David B. Benson says:

    FTC does not allow (in principle) false advertising. DOn’t think FCC does either. Station could lose license.

    So don’t give them lots of credit for this action.

  11. Dean says:

    Does anybody guess that this TV station is going to face some kind of boycott by conservatives for “censorship”? Has Rush or O’Reilly told people to stop watching it?

  12. Question: Does W-M [HR2454] mandate the use of “renewable” electricity sources? What does that mandate do to my price of electricity here in Illinois? I am on page 193 of “Earth: the Sequel” by Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. Fred Krupp says solar electricity from a large scale solar plant in Arizona will cost a minimum of 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour and it will cost an additional 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour to transport the electricity to the rest of us on high voltage DC power lines. That adds up to 12 cents per kilowatt hour. I am now paying 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That would be a 60% increase in that portion of my electricity that comes from solar times a 15% share or a 9% increase in my electric bill, or about $23 per month or $276 per year.

    Please post the entire present version of W-M [HR2454] in your regular format. I can’t decode the newest Acrobat format.

    [JR: Who are you and what have you done with Asteroid Miner? The real A-M smart guy who knows that in fact W-M has a too-week renewable mandate that is hardly different from business as usual. I have already explained at length how the W-M 2020 target (beyond BAU) will be met through domestic emissions reduction cuts — primarily energy efficiency, conservation, low-cost renewables (biomass cofiring, some wind), and natural gas — that may be $15 a ton of CO2. The modest amount that would raise your electricity rates will be compensated for by the huge amount of funding the bill directs towards energy efficiency.

    In short, your bill will stay about the same.]