At least a dozen people sent me the same article on Wednesday from The Des Moines Register. The headline read:
Ron DeSantis says eminent domain needed in energy pipeline projects during Iowa town hall
Anyone who looks at headlines but doesn’t read the story — which is the majority of people in my experience — would walk away thinking the Florida Governor supports private businesses using eminent domain to seize private property for private gain.
But what if, and follow me here, what if some sort of evidence existed of what DeSantis actually said? Like, if his words were captured in real-time by some sort of recording device that couldn’t just be covered with a misleading headline.
Something sort of like this…
Click on it. That’s a video of DeSantis answering the question. The question, by the way, should have been direct and should have asked specifically about carbon capture pipeline projects instead of being more general.
After all, the reason this isn’t a hypothetical is because of what is happening with the carbon capture pipelines. There’s no reason to have the question be broad or generalized when there is a specific situation that gets to the heart of the question.
Anyway, here is the answer from DeSantis:
“I do not think that that’s an appropriate use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is for public use. And so, there was a situation in Connecticut that went all the way to the Supreme Court called Kelo versus city of New London where they eminent domained a woman’s home because they had a private development that would be more lucrative for the community. I thought that that was an abuse. The Supreme Court mistakenly upheld that. So I’ve long been a critic of expansive use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is something that is a legitimate power that our founders recognized but it’s limited. It’s limited to public purposes. So sometimes you need to build the interstate highway system like they did under Eisenhower. Sometimes you need to do things like uh, the Keystone XL Pipeline for energy that has a public use. But that’s different than something just for private gain. So I think individuals have a right to the vitality of their private property and private property rights are very important to me and we will absolutely as President not champion an expansive use of eminent domain power certainly by the federal government. It will be narrow as the Founding Fathers intended.”
According to the first part of his answer, the carbon capture pipelines would not be an appropriate use of eminent domain. But according to the last part, one could argue the carbon capture pipelines are for energy.
There is a really, really, really simple solution to this — DeSantis could just answer the question The Iowa Standard asked his campaign a few weeks ago.
Does he support eminent domain to build the carbon capture pipelines? Does he believe in the wisdom of capturing carbon?
The Iowa Standard sent his campaign a text message on Wednesday night seeking clarification once again. We will let you know if we receive an answer. We hope it is a direct one — something like:
Yes, eminent domain should and can be used for these carbon capture pipelines.
Or.
No, eminent domain should not and cannot be used for these carbon capture pipelines.
It’s literally that simple. Yet he is making it overly complicated.
President Donald J. Trump remains “undecided” on the issue despite the fact he signed a bill that included tax credits that incentivize the project. He has refused to side with landowners who are concerned about their private property rights being abused in this situation by eminent domain.
Vivek Ramaswamy is the only major candidate who has been critical of not just the use of eminent domain for these pipelines, but the wisdom of the carbon capture pipelines.
Ryan Binkley has also spoken out against the pipelines.
