Hollow Endorsement

Sometimes political endorsements seem a bit awkward. Maybe that’s because sometimes they don’t exist.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

There’s a new bill floating around Congress. The Farm and Ranch Habitat Protection Act, proposed by Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.), would amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to allow for “accidental and incidental killings of endangered species.” The bill seems to open up a loophole in the ESA; what’s “incidental” to some is crucial to others. But then again, maybe the bill is reasonable: In a letter to his House colleagues, Campbell even touted the support of the National Audubon Society.

Why would the Audubon Society, an organization that “advocates the stringent enforcement of the Endangered Species Act,” endorse such a bill? Good question—particularly because the Audubon Society had never even heard of the bill, let alone supported it.

Campbell was caught red-handed when Audubon found out he was falsely listing their organization, as well as the Planning and Conservation League, as supporters of his bill in an April 20th letter addressed to fellow Congress members.

Responding to Campbell on April 30, Audubon vice president Daniel Beard set the record straight: “Until we have the opportunity to fully examine your legislation and determine whether it would provide a net benefit to listed species on the national level, we can not, and do not, endorse your bill.”

Given that the Audubon Society didn’t endorse his proposed bill, you’d think Campbell would promptly remove their name from the list of supporters. Nope. Campbell’s revised letter still named Audubon as supporters—despite their continued protest—until finally a third version was sent out which at last omitted mention of the Society altogether.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend