Erik Paulsen has consistently sided with Big Oil to oppose tough measures to fight Global Warming and promote energy independence.

Paulsen voted:
NO to Minnesota's participation in a regional greenhouse gas reduction program. [1]
NO to requiring that 20 percent of Minnesota's energy be produced from renewable sources by 2020. [2]
NO to requiring that renewable energy make up a minimum share of the electricity sold by utilities. [3]

In announcing his Energy Plan on August 8th, Paulsen focused almost exclusively on developing renewable energy.
Yet, he has already accepted PAC contributions from Exxon Mobil and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, as part of the $13.5 million that Big Oil has contributed to Republicans this election.

So which Erik Paulsen should the voters of the Third Congressional District believe?

Ashwin Madia will not accept any corporate PAC money from the energy industry or any other corporate PAC. He also calls for the repeal of $14 billion in tax breaks awarded to Big Oil in 2005.

Madia's comprehensive energy plan includes environmentally responsible drilling, research and development into renewable energy, and embraces technologies that reduce energy consumption.

When the League of Conservation Voters formally endorsed Madia, they stated that "Madia's dedication to clean energy and commitment to clean air and clean water for the people of Minnesota make him the logical successor to an environmental leader". The statement refers to retiring representative Jim Ramstad, who achieved a score of 95% on the LCV's 2007 National Environmental Scorecard.

Ashwin Madia will proudly continue Ramstad's stewardship on environmental issues.

_________________________________________________________
[1] The Midwest regional cap and trade program, House Journal p. 10554, 4/23/08
[2] House Journal p. 4202, 5/19/05
[3] House Journal p. 4555, 5/14/01