The coal industry is in the middle of a massive $40 million campaign to make sure that Congress, the presidential candidates, and the American people get to know that black rock in their stockings a little better - and to keep politicians from doing anything to threaten the burning of said unwelcome stocking guest in coal-fired power plants. If you’ve paid attention to the presidential race you probably noticed that a number of the debates were sponsored by a coal front group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices and that those debates did not dare to feature a single question about global warming. CNN received $5 million dollars from the group. I’d say they got a good bang for their buck.

Facing a bruising fight over climate change, the coal industry is on the political offensive this election year to ensure that no matter who wins in November, so does coal.

Billions of dollars in corporate profits are at stake for the companies that mine, ship and burn the nation’s most abundant domestic fuel.

…

The group expects to spend some $40 million this year. That’s more than double its spending in 2007.

With 59 coal power plants scrapped last year, the industry is fighting to make sure it can emerge from the climate change debate with a guaranteed spot in the nation’s energy future. Even as critics call for shuttering coal plants, the industry is shopping new uses for the fuel, such as converting it into synthetic diesel and jet fuel through a proposed group of coal-to-liquids plants.

Now I know that these industry shops have to disclose their lobbying, you can view ABECs disclosures here, but why don’t they have to disclose all of their efforts to influence legislation through PR, advertising, and general marketing campaigns. How is this any less important to the outcomes of legislation than the direct lobbying of members of Congress?

As politicians rely on public perceptions, through polling and other devices, to gauge their constituents views on issues it seems crucial to understand how those with business in Washington are trying to influence our perceptions that then get related to our elected representatives.

Now maybe these guys file a 990 somewhere and I can’t find it, but I’m pretty sure that these lobby and front groups do not disclose their efforts to lobby the American people and change perceptions (or maintain them). That’s not cool.

0 Comments

There’s an unwritten rule in the world of money and politics: the smaller the audience, the bigger the role of money in determining the outcome. This works both in elections and in legislation. Not many people pay attention to a humdrum House reelection contest, so the challenger can’t get traction and the incumbent’s war chest is usually sufficient to stave off anything but a renegade millionaire.

In legislation, the more attention a bill gathers, the more opponents it tends to pick up and the more expensive its passage is likely to be. Earmarks are the perfect example of stealth legislation – the items are buried in bigger bills and hardly anyone knows about them.

Every once in a while, though, a bill or an issue pops out of its accustomed track and draws the attention of the public at large. When that happens, the dynamics change, things become more expensive, and the outcome is less predictable.

For years, the coal mining industry has been coasting along comfortably in Washington. Its campaign contributions, which spiked heavily through soft money in 2000 and 2002, have been more solidly Republican than almost any other industry – a helpful asset in a town where the GOP controls all three branches of government.

But this past winter’s dramatic coal disasters – involving the death of 33 miners – brought long-dormant mining safety issues into sharp public focus.

When Congress finally revisited mining safety rules this week, even the industry joined in to back tougher rules. The bill passed the House yesterday on a vote of 381-37. It won unanimous approval in the Senate last month.

So far this election cycle, there’s been no big jump in coal mining contributions. Like most industries, its political giving has dropped with the banning of unlimited soft money contributions. But because 33 miners lost their lives – and the whole country noticed – the long-buried issue of mine safety jumped onto center stage and Congress responded to the public’s attention.

To give the industry credit, they didn’t hunker down and try to fight it. (There’s another old political rule: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.) The safety measures passed yesterday by the House – limited as they were – were clearly a step forward in making life somewhat less dangerous for coal miners.

But it’s a sure bet that if the audience paying attention had been the usual one, it wouldn’t have happened.

0 Comments

The high spending political action of West Virginia’s Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy Co., is leading to calls for campaign finance reform, according to the Wall Street Journal. Blankenship has spent $6 million over the past two years on “political advertising campaigns, battling Democratic judges and fighting high taxes.” He has helped unseat a State Supreme Court Justice and lower the state’s food tax. Public officials have attacked Blankenship for not spending enough money on worker safety protections at his mines – recently, “four workers have died at Massey-owned mines in West Virginia, two of them in a fire on Jan. 21.”

0 Comments

The Los Angeles Times reports that former House Resources Committee legal aide and current mining industry lobbyist Duane Gibson held a $1,000 a head fundraiser for House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) that included many mining industry officials three months before Pombo presented legislation that would open up public lands to mining. Gibson, who has been named in subpoenas in the federal probe of Jack Abramoff, also worked as lead investigator at the Resources Committee on behalf of businessman Charles Hurwitz, under investigation by federal banking regulators. Charges against Hurwitz were later dropped after Pombo and John Doolittle (R-CA) – both recipients of campaign contributions from Hurwitz – undermined the federal case against him.

0 Comments