Just a little "opposition research," said the head of Avangrid's political action committee that is trying to prevent a citizens referendum on the company's New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project through the woods of Maine. Opposition research is "standard operating procedure" for such a campaign, he said. Perhaps that's so, but is it fair? Or is it another manifestation of the corporate state we all live in? Does it demonstrate the advantage corporations have in the uneven balance of power in the true life David v. Goliath struggles of grassroots groups against the corporations who have bought their government?
What if the citizens had conducted surveillance of corporate activities, sitting outside corporate offices in their cars while taking photographs of the people coming and going, finding out who owns certain vehicles and where they live, calling around to compile information about the executives' activities when they're not at work, and trolling their personal social media pages to find and exploit personal information? I'm pretty sure the corporation would consider that dangerous stalking and take whatever action it felt necessary. But, yet, that's exactly what Avangrid did to NECEC opponents, and they claim there's nothing wrong with it. If corporations can use their vast resources to target ordinary citizens, but citizens cannot use their own resources to target corporate executives, we need to re-examine how we think about the balance of power.
Last month, Maine citizens opposed to Avangrid's NECEC transmission project turned in enough signatures to put the project's approval by the Maine PUC on the ballot in November. Good for them! The citizens have valiantly tried to be heard through the regulatory and legislative venues available to them, but kept finding doors closed because the corporation behind the initiative wields too much political power in Maine. A citizens referendum was their best option.
But the corporation wasn't going to let its influence and control slip away so easily into the hands of the people. It's spent millions opposing the referendum, and the depths to which they have stooped have finally been revealed.
On February 26, Avangrid executives got thoroughly roasted by investment analysts over the NECEC project during an earnings call. Avangrid was peppered with questions regarding a public statement that it would begin building the project before the referendum came to a vote in November. An analyst wanted to know how Avangrid would "offset the risks of negative referendum outcome," where the company may have made a significant, unrecoverable investment in a project that later had its permit invalidated. It's a good question. Well, first the company sort of walked back its statement about starting construction before 3rd quarter. Then CEO Jim Torgerson shared that "there are some thing[s] we can do in the interim" while the Secretary of State was reviewing the submitted petitions for certification. Cue the creepy and suspenseful music...
Some things? What things would those be? Turns out the company was smack dab in the middle of sending letters to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that the petition gatherers had broken laws, along with an affidavit from a private investigator that made a lot of presumptions out of little fact.
Turns out Avangrid's PAC (which, let's be real here, is actually just Avangrid itself) had been doing some surveillance of its opposition. According to the affidavit, a private investigator creeped on an office the opposition rented to house the administrative functions of its petition drive. He creeped for just 4 days, and wouldn't you know it, he found exactly what he was looking for on those days, despite the fact that the signature gathering had been going on for months. What a coincidence!
The investigator zeroed in on one particular woman and photographed her, called her place of employment, creeped on her online presence to gather information, and used resources to run license plates and identify vehicles. And then he compiled his findings in an affidavit full of presumptions and "who shot John" conclusions.
Although Avangrid had this information at the end of January, it sat on it until the end of February. On Feb. 27, Avangrid's attorney sent it to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that violations occurred of "eminently clear" Maine law that would make certain petitions invalid. The Secretary of State says that it did not have sufficient time to investigate the allegations and thus could make no findings regarding the allegations.
This is starting to sound like a set up to me.
First, let's look at the law that was supposedly violated.
What if the citizens had conducted surveillance of corporate activities, sitting outside corporate offices in their cars while taking photographs of the people coming and going, finding out who owns certain vehicles and where they live, calling around to compile information about the executives' activities when they're not at work, and trolling their personal social media pages to find and exploit personal information? I'm pretty sure the corporation would consider that dangerous stalking and take whatever action it felt necessary. But, yet, that's exactly what Avangrid did to NECEC opponents, and they claim there's nothing wrong with it. If corporations can use their vast resources to target ordinary citizens, but citizens cannot use their own resources to target corporate executives, we need to re-examine how we think about the balance of power.
Last month, Maine citizens opposed to Avangrid's NECEC transmission project turned in enough signatures to put the project's approval by the Maine PUC on the ballot in November. Good for them! The citizens have valiantly tried to be heard through the regulatory and legislative venues available to them, but kept finding doors closed because the corporation behind the initiative wields too much political power in Maine. A citizens referendum was their best option.
But the corporation wasn't going to let its influence and control slip away so easily into the hands of the people. It's spent millions opposing the referendum, and the depths to which they have stooped have finally been revealed.
On February 26, Avangrid executives got thoroughly roasted by investment analysts over the NECEC project during an earnings call. Avangrid was peppered with questions regarding a public statement that it would begin building the project before the referendum came to a vote in November. An analyst wanted to know how Avangrid would "offset the risks of negative referendum outcome," where the company may have made a significant, unrecoverable investment in a project that later had its permit invalidated. It's a good question. Well, first the company sort of walked back its statement about starting construction before 3rd quarter. Then CEO Jim Torgerson shared that "there are some thing[s] we can do in the interim" while the Secretary of State was reviewing the submitted petitions for certification. Cue the creepy and suspenseful music...
Some things? What things would those be? Turns out the company was smack dab in the middle of sending letters to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that the petition gatherers had broken laws, along with an affidavit from a private investigator that made a lot of presumptions out of little fact.
Turns out Avangrid's PAC (which, let's be real here, is actually just Avangrid itself) had been doing some surveillance of its opposition. According to the affidavit, a private investigator creeped on an office the opposition rented to house the administrative functions of its petition drive. He creeped for just 4 days, and wouldn't you know it, he found exactly what he was looking for on those days, despite the fact that the signature gathering had been going on for months. What a coincidence!
The investigator zeroed in on one particular woman and photographed her, called her place of employment, creeped on her online presence to gather information, and used resources to run license plates and identify vehicles. And then he compiled his findings in an affidavit full of presumptions and "who shot John" conclusions.
Although Avangrid had this information at the end of January, it sat on it until the end of February. On Feb. 27, Avangrid's attorney sent it to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that violations occurred of "eminently clear" Maine law that would make certain petitions invalid. The Secretary of State says that it did not have sufficient time to investigate the allegations and thus could make no findings regarding the allegations.
This is starting to sound like a set up to me.
First, let's look at the law that was supposedly violated.
§903-E. Persons not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to a petition circulator
1. Certain notaries public and others. A notary public or other person authorized by law to administer oaths or affirmations generally is not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to the circulator of a petition under section 902 if the notary public or other generally authorized person is:
A. Providing any other services, regardless of compensation, to initiate the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated. For the purposes of this paragraph, "initiate" has the same meaning as section 1052, subsection 4-B; or [PL 2017, c. 418, §3 (NEW).]
B. Providing services other than notarial acts, regardless of compensation, to promote the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated.
Eminently clear? My reading is that a notary cannot initiate the referendum. Avangrid provides no proof that the notary they creeped did this. I also read that a notary cannot promote the initiative. Again, Avangrid provides no proof that the notary they creeped did this. The most Avangrid's affidavit reveals is that they saw a notary playing with papers at the opposition's office. No initiation, no promotion. It seems to me that it is eminently clear that no violations occurred (except for the creepy privacy violations engaged in by Avangrid's investigator). Looks like a judge is going to have to evaluate whether the law is "eminently clear" or if Avangrid is just stretching things to create a long and grinding court battle to delay the referendum.
RSS Feed