Audit says EPA used propaganda to advance Clean Water Act Rule
When the EPA proposed its overly-broad rule redefining “waters of the United States,” we noted here and here the EPA’s Administrator’s absurd claims that the new rule would not expand federal authority and would ease the regulatory burden on landowners. We also noted here that EPA rammed the rule through the rule-making process over the objections of the Army Corps, the putative co-authors of the new rule. Then, we documented our opinion that the so-called WOTUS rule violated the Clean Water Act, Supreme Court precedent, and even the Constitution. And, we reported here that we had filed suit against the EPA for violating the law, along with 60 other plaintiffs and 31 states. Not long after these suits were filed, we posted here that two separate courts had stayed the rule and held the WOTUS rule likely was invalid on statutory and constitutional grounds, as we had predicted. Now, we hear that the EPA engaged in “covert propaganda” to drum up support for the rule in violation of the law.
The New York Times published an article today that reveals the damning results of a GAO audit of the EPA’s surreptitious practice of using social media to influence public opinion and to urge lobbying on the agency’s behalf. According to the article, EPA violated two laws:
Federal agencies are allowed to promote their own policies, but they are not allowed to engage in propaganda, which means covert activity intended to influence the American public. They also are not allowed to use federal resources to conduct so-called grass-roots lobbying — urging the American public to contact Congress to take a certain kind of action on pending legislation.
Violating the law to push a political agenda appears to be the new normal for too many government agencies, like the EPA. You can read the sordid details in the GAO report here.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.
Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.
Sunday marks the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Pacific Legal Foundation celebrates Constitution Day this year with a column about a Founding Father and signer of the Constitution who now stars in the Broadway hit musical, Hamilton. We also use the opportunity to remind our federal legislators about the importance of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. The opinion piece will run in newspapers from coast to coast this weekend.