Tell The Federal Reserve: Hold Public Hearings On The Goldman Sachs Banking Deal

Goldman Sachs is already “too big to fail.” But now the megabank is quietly trying to get even bigger, with little transparency or oversight.1

A few months ago, Goldman Sachs announced its intention to buy an online banking unit worth $16 billion from GE Capital. The purchase would move the former investment bank deeper into the realm of federally-insured commercial banking, without providing any clear benefit to consumers or communities in need.2

This is exactly the type of behavior that we could avoid if the Glass-Steagall Act were reinstated — separating risky investment banking from commercial banking, and protecting Americans’ savings accounts from Wall Street’s gambling.

Instead of putting the purchase under the microscope, the Federal Reserve – stacked with former Goldman Sachs executives – has allowed the bank to get away with little transparency.3,4 We need to speak up now to demand public hearings to ensure that “Government Sachs” is not using its deep connections to push through a deal without anyone asking hard questions.

Bill Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, used to work at Goldman Sachs. In fact, three of the twelve presidents in the Federal Reserve system are former Goldman Sachs executives. Last year, a whistleblower released audio recordings of Federal Reserve officials showing extreme deference to Goldman Sachs bankers.

Just a few days ago, Goldman paid $50 million to settle charges that an employee it hired from the Federal Reserve illegally accessed confidential Fed documents to aid a client.5 To top it all off, a prominent former Fed regulator is now the chief compliance officer for GE Capital, which would also benefit from the sale.6

These close ties may be helping Goldman push through a deal without badly needed scrutiny. Some reports even indicate that Federal Reserve officials like General Counsel Scott Alvarez may have taken additional, weekend phone calls with Goldman Sachs representatives, before the public received notice of the bank’s plans, to help smooth the approval of the sale.7

For decades, federal law has demanded regulators take public benefits into account when approving banking deals like this one. But according to our friends at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), Goldman Sachs provided only flimsy arguments about how the move will benefit communities in need. NCRC recently wrote a letter to the Federal Reserve demanding public hearings and the extension of the public comment period to give the public a chance to weigh in – and we need to add our voices immediately.8

The Goldman / GE Capital deal will not create a public benefit. In fact, it may make matters worse. After all, Goldman Sachs has broken the law countless times, and been forced to settle countless cases alleging criminal wrongdoing.

If this deal goes through, the former investment bank would have more deposits insured by the federal government, while continuing its risky bets in other areas. Leaders are increasingly calling for a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall rules to ban this type of arrangement.9

  • Tell the Federal Reserve: Hold public hearings on the Goldman Sachs banking deal. Petition to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Bill Dudley:
  • “Hold a public hearing and extend the comment period on Goldman Sachs’ proposed acquisition of GE Capital bank deposits, which would provide no public benefit while allowing a bank that has repeatedly broken the law to grow even larger.”

Go to the below site to sign the petition:

Thank you for speaking out,

Murshed Zaheed, Deputy Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Kaja Whitehouse, “Group opposes Goldman purchase of GE deposits,” USA Today, September 21, 2015.
Ben Walsh, “After Criminal Leak Case, Goldman Changes Its Revolving Door Policy,” Huffington Post, October 28, 2015.
“Leadership: Michael Silva,” GE Capital.
Matthew R. Lee, “FOIA Response to ICP Shows Fed Solicitude to Goldman, Appeal Filed,” Inner City Press, October 25, 2015.
“NCRC Comment Letter on Goldman Sachs’ Proposed Acquisition of GE Capital,”, September 19, 2015.

© 2015 CREDO. All rights reserved.


It’s Time To End The Hyde Amendment

Excerpt from: CREDO Action

This fall’s fight to defund Planned Parenthood was a clear reminder that Republicans are committed to taking health care, including abortions, away from women.

For far too long, Congress has been keeping some women from accessing abortion. The Hyde amendment has prohibited taxpayer funds from paying for abortion care for 39 years. Hyde’s effects are devastating for low-income women, making it nearly impossible for them to access safe, affordable abortion.

Reps. Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky and Diana DeGette have introduced a bill, the EACH Woman Act, which would undo Hyde and ensure that every woman, no matter how much she makes or how she’s insured, has access to abortion coverage.1

  • Tell Congress: All women deserve access to safe, legal abortion. Tell Congress to pass the EACH Woman Act now!

Women and their access to reproductive health care are under near-constant attack across the country, but it’s low-income women and women of color who disproportionately bear the burden of those attacks. Hyde’s passage (and its subsequent reauthorization every year for the last 39 years) banned Medicaid from funding abortions, with only a few exceptions.

And state-based anti-choice laws which close clinics and impose mandatory waiting periods make it close to financially impossible for low-income women to use their own resources to access abortions that Medicaid won’t cover.

The annual renewal of Hyde legitimizes and perpetuates, year after year, the false and dangerous idea that having an abortion is behavior that should be stigmatized and defunded. It also paves the way for other restrictions on abortion funding.

The Stupak amendment keeps abortion care from being funded under the Affordable Care Act. Since the Hyde amendment was passed, federal employees and their dependents, military personnel and their dependents, Peace Corps volunteers, and low-income residents of Washington, D.C. have all been denied abortion coverage in their health care.

Undoing this crippling abortion restriction, which has gone largely unchallenged for decades, won’t happen overnight, and certainly not in this Congress. But building momentum can start now, and can make a big difference.

Can you help build support for the EACH Woman Act now?

  • Tell Congress:
  • “Protect every woman’s right to make her own health care decisions by passing the EACH Woman Act.”

Go to the link below to sign the petition:

Thanks for standing up for women,

Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets


H.R.2972 – Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2015

Tell President Obama: Fill The Vacancies On The Federal Bench Now!

Excerpt from: CREDO Action

Tell President Obama to nominate judges now!
Our federal justice system is in crisis. The number of judicial vacancies in federal courts throughout the U.S. has risen to 67, and nearly half of those are now considered judicial emergencies.1

  • We depend on the federal courts to protect civil rights, women’s rights, voting rights, and the environment. But right now the courts can’t do their job because Senate Republicans are stalling, obstructing, and running down the clock until 2017, when they hope a Republican president will appoint more conservative judges.2

It doesn’t have to be this way. Senate Republicans are getting away with this only because President Obama has been respecting a tradition of nominating only judges who have the approval of their home-state senators. Under that policy, Republican senators can stall the entire process by failing to make any recommendations.

Serving justice is far more important than showing deference to cynical Republican senators acting in bad faith. It’s time for President Obama to move forward and nominate judges for every vacancy.

Filling these vacancies while President Obama is in office is absolutely crucial for making sure federal judges represent progressive values when presiding over cases. And because federal judges have lifetime appointments, failing to fill these vacancies now could set progressive causes back for decades.

Federal courts are often the best hope for fighting back against extreme, right-wing state legislatures and greedy corporations. Unfortunately, Republican obstruction is having real consequences right now, with caseloads under tremendous strain and a deficit of judges to preside over important cases.

Since President Obama took office, Senate Republicans have used every trick in the book to cripple the judicial nomination process. And it’s worked. Even when Democrats finally reformed the filibuster in 2013, Republicans blocked confirmation votes for as long as they could to waste legislative time and allow the fewest number of appointments to go through.

Now, they’re hoping that by refusing to even participate in the nominations process, they can indefinitely delay any appointments until 2017, and then appoint a raft of conservative judges under a Republican president. This year alone, the Senate has confirmed just six judges — the slowest pace in over 60 years.

And almost all vacancies without nominees are in states with at least one Republican senator.3  That’s why it’s time for President Obama to set aside business as usual, especially where Republicans have stopped working in good faith, nominate justices for every court vacancy, and do what’s right for our justice system.

If President Obama is going to break with tradition and nominate judges without home-state Senator approval, he needs to know that progressives will have his back.

The petition to President Obama reads:

  • “Nominate judges for every federal court vacancy. We can’t allow Republican obstruction to cripple our federal justice system.”
  • Go to the link below to sign the petition:

Thanks for everything you do,

Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

“Judicial Emergencies,” United States Courts, October 1, 2015.
“Politics over Justice: Judicial Selection in the 114th Congress,” Alliance for Justice, September 17, 2015.

Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s—And Denied It

Excerpt from: The Nation

Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s—And Denied It. And thanks to their willingness to sucker the world, we’re now a chaotic mess.
By Bill McKibben

A few weeks before the last great international climate conference —2009, in Copenhagen—the email accounts of a few climate scientists were hacked and reviewed for incriminating evidence suggesting that global warming was a charade. Eight separate investigations later concluded that there was literally nothing to “Climategate,” save a few sentences taken completely out of context—but by that time, endless, breathless media accounts about the “scandal” had damaged the prospects for any progress at the conference.

Now, on the eve of the next global gathering in Paris this December, there’s a new scandal. But this one doesn’t come from an anonymous hacker taking a few sentences out of context. This one comes from months of careful reporting by two separate teams, one at the Pulitzer-prize winning website Inside Climate News, and other at the Los Angeles Times (with an assist from the Columbia Journalism School).

  • Following separate lines of evidence and document trails, they’ve reached the same bombshell conclusion: ExxonMobil, theworld’s largest and most powerful oil company, knew everything there was to know about climate change by the mid-1980s, and then spent the next few decades systematically funding climate denial and lying about the state of the science.

This scandal—traveling under the hashtag #exxonknew—is just beginning to build. The Inside Climate News series of six pieces is set to conclude this week and be published as a book, but the LA Times apparently has far more reporting waiting to be released. Already members of Congress—Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier of California—and presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders have called on the Department of Justice to investigate, comparing it to the predations of the tobacco industry.

Should the DOJ muster its courage to go after this most profitable and connected of companies, the roadmap is already well laid out by the two investigations.

  • ICN has demonstrated that as early as the late 1970s, Exxon scientists were briefing top executives that climate change was real, dangerous, and caused by their product. By the early 1980s, their own climate models were predicting—with great accuracy—the track the global temperature has taken ever since.
  • The LA Times reporting is at least as important. It demonstrated that Exxon clearly believed their own climate models and used them to guide their efforts in the newly melting Arctic, where as their senior researcher said “warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost and sea levels.” (Indeed, he added, climate change “can only help lower exploration and development costs” thus making their bids for Arctic lease rights more profitable).

But though we know now that behind the scenes Exxon understood precisely what was going on, in public they feigned ignorance or worse. CEO Lee Raymond described global warming as “projections are based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, on sheer speculation,” and insisted—in a key presentation to China’s leading officials in 1997—that the globe was probably cooling.

This scandal will not go away easily. The insider Washington Monthly
came out with language as strong as you’re likely to hear: A fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

And on Sunday the investigation truly came home, when the Dallas Morning News—read across the oil patch and hometown paper for Exxon—put the ICN investigation on its front page. The whole business angered me so much that I sat down in front of a Mobil gas pump near my home, shutting it down for the few minutes until I was arrested in an effort to draw more attention to the story. (It’s possible that this is the first time anyone’s gone to jail to encourage newspaper readership.)

A few observers, especially on the professionally jaded left, have treated the story as old news—as something that even if we didn’t know, we knew. “Of course they lied,” someone told me. That cynicism, however, serves as the most effective kind of cover for Exxon (right alongside the tired argument that it’s “not the fault of the companies—they’re just meeting demand from all of us.”)

What’s beginning to sink in is the horrible impact of their lies: Exxon, had its leaders merely stated directly what they knew to be true, could have ended the pretend debate over climate change as early as the 1980s. When scientists like NASA’s Jim Hansen first raised public awareness of climate change, think of what would have happened if Exxon’s CEO had gone to Congress, too, and said that their internal scientific efforts show precisely the same thing. Instead, they funded every climate denial outfit that asked for cash and worked with veterans of the tobacco wars to help raise the same kind of doubt about climate science.

When Hansen testified before a Congressional committee in 1988, the atmospheric level of CO2 was just passing 350 parts per million. Now we’ve gone beyond 400 ppm, we’ve seen the rapid melt of the Arctic, the acidification of the planet’s oceans, and the rapid rise in extreme weather events. (Just lately: “Thousand-year-rainfalls” in South Carolina and southern California so far this month, and now a typhoon dropping a meter or more of rain on the Philippines.)

Thanks to Exxon’s willingness to sucker the world, that world is now a chaotic mess. We’ve finally begun to see the rise of a movement large enough to challenge the power of the oil companies, and that means that Paris will come out better than Copenhagen, but the quarter-century wasted will never be made up.

And count on the fossil fuel industry to continue trying to delay progress and obfuscate reality. Exxon is clearly flustered (its PR guy called the LA Times story “complete bullshit”) but unrepentant. They continue to demand favors from government, most recently a lifting of the longstanding ban on exporting American crude (“The sooner this happens, the better for us,” said Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for public and governmental affairs informed The New York Times.)

It remains to be seen if the world’s media will overcome their tendency to truckle and give this true scandal anything like the oxygen it poured on those few hapless emails. If they do, then more rapid progress on climate will be possible. The evidence of Exxon’s bad faith is so overpowering that this debacle will only deepen on further investigation; think about what a prosecutor with deposition power could accomplish.

  • If the media and the authorities don’t shirk their jobs, then someday, when the world thinks back on this greatest of crises, those climate scientists whose emails were hacked will be remembered as heroes, and Exxon will be the great object lesson for the damage unfettered greed can do.

BILL MCKIBBEN Bill McKibben is the author of a dozen books, most
recently The Bill McKibben Reader, an essay collection. A scholar in residence at Middlebury College, he is co-founder of, the largest global grassroots organizing campaign on climate change.

Justin Trudeau Just Showed American Democrats How to Win an Election

Excerpt from: the Nation

Justin Trudeau Just Showed American Democrats How to Win an Election
Promises to tax the rich and to make infrastructure investment a priority—along with an embrace of diversity—beat the right in Canada.
By John Nichols

It may be true that American Democrats have nothing better to do than wait for Joe Biden to decide whether he will mount a third bid for the presidency. Or, failing that, to try and figure out what it is about democratic socialism that might appeal to underemployed young people who are burdened with staggering student debt and face the prospect of getting kicked off a parent’s health insurance plan.

But if America’s Democrats could look away from the 2016 horse race for just a moment, they might actually learn something about going big—and winning big–from Justin Trudeau.The 43-year-old leader of Canada’s Liberal Party was not supposed to come out of the country’s 2015 election as its prime minister.

At the start of the race, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a George W. Bush, role model for Scott Walker, was locked in serious competition with a cautiously left-leaning New Democratic Party. The traditionally-centrist Liberals (at their best “vital center,” at their worst blandly managerial), having been very nearly obliterated in the previous election, did not look particularly viable. And party leader Trudeau was frequently dismissed as good-looking but inexperienced son of a great 20th-century prime minister.

“Seen at the beginning of the campaign as the least ready for the election of the three main party leaders,” observed The Toronto Starat the end of a campaign in which, the newspaper noted, “Trudeau managed in 11 weeks to shape a compelling political narrative and provide Canadians with a credible alternative to Harper and the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair.” Trudeau surprised everyone by running a campaign that veered left on economics—so much so that analysts said that, on several critical measures, the Liberals outflanked the historically social-democratic NDP.

Trudeau did not run as a radical, which makes senses as he is not one. But he did make a reasonably radical break with the tepid politics of too many political leaders in this age of austerity. Instead of fretting endlessly about spending and budget deficits, he declared that his priorities would be job creation and policies to benefit the middle class. And he said he would invest in the future, rather than cheating it with austerity cuts.

Trudeau proposed to tax the rich in order to fund programs for everyone else, declaring that, “We can do more for the people who need it, by doing less for the people who don’t.” (And, notably, he coupled that concern for people who need economic help with a warm embrace of Canada’s ethnic and racial diversity that was starkly different from the Donald Trump-like messaging about immigrants and religious minorities that Harper employed in the final days of the campaign.)

More vital even than the promise of fair and progressive taxation after so many years of Harper’s of-the-rich, for-the rich, by-the-rich governance, however, was Trudeau proposal to invest massively in job-creating infrastructure programs. To fund the investment, Trudeau proposed that Canada could and should accept a reasonable level of deficit spending.

Explaining that there are many kinds of deficits, Trudeau argued that “the fiscal deficit isn’t the one that concerns Canadians and certainly doesn’t concern economists that much. It is the infrastructure deficit that is so concerning to so many people. That’s what’s slowing down our growth.”

As both the Conservatives and the NDP criticized his approach, Trudeau went all in, declaring that, “The Liberal party is the only party standing straight, looking Canadians in the eye and saying, ‘We need investment and that is what we are going to do to grow the economy, to balance the books in 2019.’”

He even cut a television ad–which became a YouTube sensation–that explained Keynesian economics on an escalator. The ad features the son of the iconic Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau trying to walk up on a down escalator. Unable to get ahead on the escalator, Trudeau explains that the experience mirrors “what’s happening to millions of Canadians in 10 years under Stephen Harper.” “(Harper’s) ideas to give benefits to the wealthy but make cuts to everything else has made it harder for most people to get ahead,” says Trudeau, as the escalator jolts to a halt. “And (NDP leader) Mulcair promises more cuts. Now is not the time for cuts.”

The escalator starts up, heading the right direction now as Trudeau walks to the top and announces that, “In my plan, we’ll kickstart the economy by investing in jobs and growth and lowering taxes for our middle class. That’s real change.”

Trudeau has a lot to prove as he forms a new government, and seeks to keep his promises. He may disappoint generally, and he is likely to disappoint the left and organized labor on some economic questions–including, perhaps, the debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. (The labor-backed NDP, which formed the official opposition in the last Canadian parliament, suffered a significant setback this year. But it will still hold 44 seats in the new parliament, more than ten percent of the total. As such, it will be positioned to aggressively challenge Trudeau on trade issues, and to pressure him to make real his campaign-season promises to take on failed austerity policies.)

There is no need to make Trudeau a hero, or an across-the-board role model. But there is every reason to recognize the genius of the escalator ad, and the role played by Trudeau’s broad and bold economic message in producing a dramatic political shift. At the end of a campaign where they started in third place, Liberals have achieved an absolute majority in parliament.

  • Democrats should take a serious look at Trudeau’s ad, and at Trudeau’s message. It’s a powerful one, with the potential to push politics beyond the limp austerity versus austerity-lite debate that has turned so many Americans (especially young Americans) against the idea that voting matters.
  • This is, at least to some extent, what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is talking about when he proposes a “political revolution,” and it is what Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders such as Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Raul Grijalva of Arizona have been hinting at with big proposals to address student debt, alter trade policies and invest in infrastructure in the U.S.

But the boldness and the optimism–and the creativity–with which Trudeau delivered the message is instructive. The point here is not to suggest that Hillary Clinton should get on an escalator, nor that American Democrats should borrow the entire Trudeau playbook. But a few pages are worth studying.

It is certainly true that Canada’s political process is distinguished by traditions, structural characteristics and nuances of party history and personality that make the country’s elections very different from those in the United States. Despite the increasingly “presidential” character of Canadian campaigns, voters choose parties rather than presidential candidates (and party leaders sometimes lose in their own constituencies and end up not just out of the running but out of parliament).

Canadians have more political options than Americans: Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP run provincial governments; the Greens and the Bloc Québécois sit in parliament. Canada has shorter campaigns that are dramatically less expensive. Canada has a different media system, with stronger commitments to public broadcasting, serious debate, analysis and dialogue. And, of course, while Canadian Liberals were campaigning to turn out a Conservative prime minister, American Democrats will be campaigning to carry on from a Democratic president while at the same time ending Republican control of Congress.

Despite the distinctions, however, American Democrats can learn from the new politics and the new economic messaging seen in a neighboring North American country that faces many of the same challenges confronting the U.S.  Trudeau was right when he echoed Abraham Lincoln in his Monday evening victory speech and declared: “You can appeal to the better angels of our nature and you can win while doing that.”“We beat fear with hope. We beat cynicism with hard work. We beat negative politics,” Trudeau told the cheering crowd. “In Canada, better is always possible.”

  • With an embrace of progressive taxation, public investment and a humane approach to economics, Democrats could in 2016 celebrate President Obama’s accomplishments while holding out the promise that, “In America, better is always possible.” •

JOHN NICHOLS is The Nation’s Washington
TWITTER correspondent.

Tell Congress: Ban Fracking On Public Lands

Excerpt from: CREDO Action

Every year, the Department of the Interior hands over vast areas of publicly-owned land to the fracking industry to be pillaged for corporate profit.

The federal government’s dangerous policy of encouraging fracking on public lands puts our air, water and the health of nearby communities at risk, and allows huge quantities of dirty oil and gas to be extracted and burned, fueling climate change.

If we want to stop the worst effects of climate change, we have to ban fracking on public lands. But so far, President Obama has ignored massive grassroots pressure to act, instead bragging repeatedly about the fracking-fueled boom in oil and gas production on public lands.

Reps. Mark Pocan and Jan Schakowsky recently introduced a bill to ban fracking on public lands. We can continue building the public case against fracking on public lands by urging members of Congress to go on record and support this important piece of legislation.

The scale of drilling and fracking on public lands is enormous. By the end of 2014, oil and gas companies had leases on over 34 million acres of public land, and over 200 million more acres are currently being targeted for drilling.

  • Many of these leases threaten irreplaceable national treasures, including Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, Glacier National Park in Montana, Arches and Canyonlands National Parks in Utah, and the Florida Everglades.1

But instead of acting to protect Americans, the climate and our national parks from fracking, in March President Obama’s administration released a dangerously weak set of regulations that will only encourage more fracking on public lands – even though his administration received more than 650,000 public comments on the draft rules demanding a ban on fracking on public lands.

We have to speak out now and urge members of Congress to go on record in support of banning fracking on public lands.

Tell Congress:

  • “We must ban fracking on public lands. Support the Protect Our Public Lands Act of 2015 (HR 1902).”

Go to the link below to sign the petition:

Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

© 2015 CREDO. All rights reserved.

Now Is The Time For Leader Pelosi To Force A Vote On Gun Control

Excerpt from:CREDO Action

Stop the NRA
The National Rifle Association’s grip on Congress means that it’s impossible for any gun control bills to get a vote. And when bills can’t even come to the floor, politicians who are in the NRA’s pocket are never forced to take a public stand. It means they can continue to prioritize the NRA over their constituents, and continue to do nothing to end the epidemic of gun violence in America.

We’re not likely to convince Republican leaders in the House to call a vote, but there is one way to force a vote on gun control. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi can use a parliamentary tactic called a “discharge petition” to force a vote on a gun control package, even if pro-NRA politicians in the House refuse to act. That is why we are joining with our friends at DailyKos to ask her to do just that.

In order for a discharge petition to work, we need a few Republicans to break ranks and join House Democrats and the majority of Americans in support of gun control. But before we can get to work pressuring those Republicans, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats need to file a discharge petition on a gun control package that would make a real difference in reducing gun violence and making Americans safer — requiring universal background checks including closing the gun show loophole, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and ending legal protections currently given to gun makers.

We know that Congress is unlikely to pass a gun control bill with a discharge petition. But with the current chaos in the House, there’s already a Republican effort to use a discharge petition to force a vote on an issue that has stalled in the House Financial Services Committee. The recognition, even among Republicans, that the House is in a state of near-dysfunction indicates that Democrats could potentially leverage a discharge petition to force Republicans to move on this issue.1

Even if we don’t win an up-or-down vote, we can use a discharge petition to force a vote in the House and force members of Congress to pick a side. They can either stand with the American people who are ready to take action to reduce gun violence in America or they can stand with the NRA.

  • Tell House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi:
    “Now is the time to file a discharge petition that would allow an up-or-down vote on a meaningful package of gun control reforms.”
  • Go to the link below to sign the petition:

Thank you for helping us stand up to the NRA.

Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets