DISQUS

Donna Verdue · 1 month ago

“(Please freely repost this)


This funding for the car companies was all "pay to play", insider, self-dealing. The companies that were turned down had the exact same things in common:
1. They did not pay hundreds of thousands to buy influence. This is on public record and can be investigation under lobby and cost filings.
2. They did not make campaign contributions.
3. Each of the reasons they were told they were turned down were violated with each of the companies that did get money.
4. They were doing all of the work in the U.S. unlike those who did get the money.
5. They had a car design and those who got the money were “thinking about doing a car design”.
6. You could not draw a line from them to a politician or a person who made money or political gain unlike those who did get the money.

Every one of the people that did get money got the “requirements” of the section 136 law waived or were in direct violation of the intent-of-the-law yet the DOE team for that money used those very same “requirements” to say that they would deny funding to those who had not contributed.

It was a crooked set of deals and the regulatory, law enforcement and voters need to make some noise about this.”

bcooper530 · 3 weeks ago

I always wondered how Al Gore invested the money he made off those $400,000 Global Warming speeches. Can't get any better then this deal having the State of Calif. who is broke loan you the money and make the 30 year bond payments and then wave the sales taxes on the equipment.you bought in Calif.