Public Campaign Action Fund just released a report on total influence spending by the big oil, coal, and electricity interests for the first half of this year. The report shows that from January 1 to June 30 these companies have put down nearly half a billion dollars on trying to influence members of Congress, officials in Washington, and, through advertising, you. The total amount, viewed above, consists of campaign contributions, lobbying expenses, paid advertising and media, and contributions to 527s and other organizations doing political work.

Check out the report. It’s an excellent examination of how industries use various channels to gain trust and influence.

0 Comments

Despite protestations from our favorite tweeting and qiking member of Congress, there does appear to be a relationship between supporting the policies of an industry and that industry supporting your campaign. TPM Muckraker, using data from Campaign Money Watch, points out the near immediate contributions from executives of an oil giant, the Hess Corporation, to a joint Republican National Committee-John McCain committee after Sen. McCain switched his position on offshore drilling. (Since Sen. Barack Obama switched his position after the second quarter filings, we’ll have to wait to see if there’s a similar effect.)

Ten senior Hess Corporation executives and/or members of the Hess family each gave $28,500 to the joint RNC-McCain fundraising committee, just days after McCain reversed himself to favor offshore drilling, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Nine of these contributions, seven from Hess executives and two from members of the Hess family, came on the same day, June 24th, the records show. The total collected in the wake of McCain’s reversal for the fund, called McCain Victory 2008, from Hess execs and family is $285,000.

The Washington Post pointed out last week that contributions from oil executives picked up in the end of June. After the events of the past few days, third quarter campaign reports should be flush with more of these contributions.

0 Comments

The Politico published a pretty interesting analysis that used data from the Center for Responsive Politics to show how green energy interests are upping in pretty dramatic ways the amount of money they spend lobbying Congress. Despite these large increases, however, they remain vastly over spent by the oil and gas and coal mining industries. Think of it as the arms race applied to the world of money and politics.

The alternative energy industry has increased their lobbying outlays eightfold over the past ten years, going from $2 million to almost $16 million. For instance, the American Wind Energy Association spent over $815,000 on lobbying efforts, and the National Biodiesel Board spent more than $1,235,000.

Along with lobbying, the alternative energy sector has increased its giving of campaign contributions. So far in the 2008 election cycle, green energy has shelled out almost $528,000 to federal candidates, and is on the pace to match its giving high-water mark of almost $957,000 in 2000 when Al Gore was running for president. In 1998, the industry gave just over $308,000 in contributions.

In 1998, the alternative energy sector accounted for $308,000 in donations to candidates. So far this cycle, green industry donors have given nearly $528,000 - putting them on track to match or surpass their high water mark of nearly $957,000 in 2000, when global warming guru Al Gore topped the Democratic presidential ticket.

As impressive as these increases might be, they continue to be dwarfed by the traditional energy giants: oil and gas ($82,620,985 in 2007 for lobbying, $11,534,676 in contributions so far this cycle) and coal mining ($10,898,700 in 2007 for lobbying, $1,617,787 in contributions this cycle).

As you can see, the old energy industries of oil and gas and coal invest heavily in Congress. And thanks to a Capital Eye article written by CRP’s Lindsay Renick Mayer we now know that members of Congress invest their personal wealth heavily in old energy too. Lawmakers’ personal financial disclosure reports show they have "at least 45 times more money invested in the oil and gas industry (at least $20.6 million) than in public companies that provide "green" products and services (at least $452,100)," Mayer writes.

And so the beat goes on.

0 Comments

• The White House rejected a new EPA rule to "keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones" after receiving complaints from oil and energy company executives. Ernest Angelo, a Texas oil man and a Republican activist, expressed his anger over the EPA rule by writing that many in the energy world "openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity." As always we like to remember that President Bush is the biggest recipient of campaign cash from the oil and gas industry in the entire history of elections in America.
• Anti-pork hardliner [sw: John Shadegg] (R-AZ) has fired the latest salvo in the Pork Wars between conservative Republican congressmen and [sw: Jerry Lewis]‘ (R-CA) Appropriations Committee by "circulating a newspaper story linking Rep. Jerry Lewis to ‘the inherent risk of corruption at the heart of the congressional earmark process.’"
• Several weeks ago [sw: Jerry Lewis] (R-CA) retained a lawyer to handle to federal investigation into his and his aides’ earmarking practices. One of Lewis’ lawyers is Barbara Comstock who is currently representing I. Lewis Libby in the Plame case.
• In Scotland, the famous destination of Jack Abramoff and his merry band of travellers, no one knows about the lobbyist’s well-documented golfing trips. Favorite quote: “’We have the same scandals,’ said Neil Paton, the head professional in the town’s only certified pro shop, ‘except our politicians go the beach in Spain or Italy.’"
• At least the corruption in this country doesn’t fuel an insurgency. In Iraq, that appears to be a huge problem.

0 Comments

• The San Bernardino Sun reports that two more cities have been subpoenaed in the federal investigation of Appropriations Chairman [sw: Jerry Lewis] (R-CA) and his ties to the lobbying firm Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White. The subpoenas issued to the two cities, Loma Linda and Twentynine Palms, push the total number of subpoenas issued so far to six in the investigation of Lewis’ earmark practices.
• David Safavian, aside from testifying that he is a doofus, also stated that he provided "a lot of insight and advice" to Jack Abramoff, according to the New York Times.
• House Democrats are holding a steering committee meeting today that many expect to center on Rep. [sw: William Jefferson]’s (D-LA) seat on the Ways and Means Committee. Jefferson, facing an imminent indictment for his role in a number of crooked deals, was asked to step down by Minority Leader [sw: Nancy Pelosi] (D-CA) but refused. Pelosi is expected to ask the Democratic Caucus to remove Jefferson from his committee seat and possibly replace him with another member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
• According to The Hill, [sw: Tom DeLay] (R-TX) will be leaving Congress this Friday and it looks like he’ll be slipping out the back door and not leaving with the bluster and pomp that he was known for during his tenure as one of the most powerful men on Capitol Hill.
• The Hill reports that the oil and gas industry is ramping up the fear rhetoric after the House voted to force oil companies to renegotiate their oil leases signed in 1998 and 1999. The industry is declaring that if this law passes the Senate than it would increase foreign investment in the Gulf of Mexico. After the vote in the House I did a quick run-down on oil-and-gas contributions to the Republicans who voted "Yea" and found that they took a significantly less from the industry than the average Republican. My colleague Larry Makinson did a more extensive review of career numbers and found the same pattern.
• And for some lighter news: "A struggling art galley is hoping a showing and possible sale of a pair of paintings by imprisoned ex-U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. will keep it open."

0 Comments

Kudos to my colleague, Paul Blumenthal, who writes the terrific In Broad Daylight blog for us, for doing the analysis to answer the question I raised this morning regarding whether the Republican lawmakers who voted against oil and gas company interests yesterday got less money from those interests than their Republican counterparts who stayed loyal to their cash constitutents. The answer: Yup, they sure did! Check out his analysis of the money from this election cycle. We’re going to dig a little deeper now and see what else we find out.

And this little shout out gives me the excuse to plug Paul’s daily news analysis and blog: It’s really terrific. It ought to be on your must read list every day, but only if you’re interested in what members try to get away with in broad daylight. 

0 Comments

Earlier this morning at Sunspots Ellen asked whether the Republicans who voted to take back tax incentives from oil and gas companies received less money from the oil and gas interests than those voting yes. As she noted the average intake of oil and gas money by a Republican in the 2006 election cycle is $11,645 versus $4,331 for a Democrat. So, is Ellen’s hunch right? Did these 66 Republicans receive less money on average than their party mates who voted against the tax incentive repeal?

The answer is yes. The average amount received from the oil and gas industry by these Republicans is $5,727, almost exactly half of what an average Republican received. Looking at the members who voted it is obvious why many of them did. The majority of these lawmakers come from eastern, midwest, and northeastern states with high traffic volume and high gas prices. Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan stand out. Both Republican House members from New Hampshire voted for the incentive repeal as did the two Republicans from Maryland and all of the Republicans from Connecticut. Florida led the southern states with the most members voting for the repeal at seven. This most likely reflects anger at the oil and gas industry for trying to open up the waters off of Florida’s coast to new drilling.

There are a couple of lawmakers voting for repeal that are completely unexpected. The one jumps off the page at you is House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA), known as a scourge to environmentalists and the best friend of oil and gas companies. Pombo topped all of the “Yea” Republicans with $66,200, which made him ninth overall (House and Senate) in oil and gas contributions. Why would Pombo backtrack all of a sudden? Perhaps it’s California’s sky high gas prices and the fact that his district is filled with commuters. But politics may be the best explanation. Pombo is facing his first serious challenge in both the Republican primary, from Endangered Species Act author Pete McCloskey, and in the general as Democrats have decided to target the Central Valley congressman. Taking a look at the list of Republicans voting here one can see that a number of them are expected to face grueling campaigns this year. CQ Politics lists 21 of these 66 Republicans as out of the “Safe Republican” category.

I think that the mix of these factors - a tough political climate, a lack of pressure form large campaign contributors, and pressure from constituents - leads these Republicans to buck their leadership and vote against a well known ally.

0 Comments

There’s a story in the New York Times that yesterday the House voted to take back some of the billions of dollars in incentives it had given to oil and gas producers, with lots of Republicans voting against oil company interests. Sounds like a man bites dog story, but is it?

Let’s look at what the data tells us. In the last election cycle, the Republicans in the House got roughly three times more money from oil and gas companies than did the Democrats. The OpenSecrets links show that in 2006, Republican House members have received an average of $11,645 versus an average $4,331 to Democrats. For the full 2004 cycle, the figures were $26,884 for the House Repubs and $9,754 for the Dems.

But how about those Republicans who voted against oil and gas company interests this time? Did they get more or less than their Republican colleagues from the same interests? That can’t be figured out easily, but by looking at the list, we’d bet that’s probably the case. We will check it out and get back to you.

Now this is all interesting if you just want to explore academically how the money politics game is played in Washington. I mean, the House has already passed this legislation so learning the patterns of money is only academically interesting.

But what would it take to be able to do this kind of analysis ahead of a vote and get that distributed to people who really care about these issues? (That would be just about everyone these days with gas prices and oil company profits soaring through the roof.) That’s what Sunlight is interested in. Anticipating these votes and putting the tools in the hands of citizens so they have the time to register agreement or disagreement with what Congress is doing, and who it’s doing it for is a core goal of ours.

One step in this direction is the really interesting work of Rafael DeGennaro over at ReadTheBill.org. Raf has a really simple idea: require that all legislation be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before it’s voted on. Seems like a no brainer to me and I would bet to anyone who heard of the idea. What excuse could Congress possibly have for resisting such an effort?

0 Comments

• Sen. Mel Martinez may not like this Miami Herald article that shows how $250,000 in campaign contributions is connected to the felonious lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
• Former White House procurement officer and Abramoff e-mail buddy David Safavian "was dealt a series of setbacks by a federal judge Wednesday," according to Roll Call. The judge ruled that jurors can hear allegations that Safavian gave Abramoff "confidential government information about one of his clients" and "that jurors can be told the full cost of a controversial Scotland golf junket that Safavian took part in during August 2002." Can they also be told the purpose of that trip: Golf Golf Golf Golf!!!!! (more from TalkLeft)
• This anti-Al Gore movie ad is the perfect example of how big business operates through front groups. This one just seems completely over the top, beyond the realms of reason. I mean this ad is hanging in the outer regions of the universe. Seriously how many people in the world are pro-emissions? I love Josh Marshall’s vision of the pro-emissions crowd: "I have this image in my mind of connoisseurs with their noses by a muffler. Nice bouquet? Mmmmm. Bahrain 1974." An e-mailer to Josh provides his take: "With their new ad anti-global warming ads, I think we can safely call May 18, 2006 the day the oil companies lost it completely."

0 Comments

Last month I wrote a post about the oil and gas industry’s massive lobbying expenditures. Here’s a look at that again:

* ChevronTexaco $8,550,000
* ExxonMobil $7,140,000
* ConocoPhillips $5,098,084
* Marathon $4,290,000
* BP $2,880,000
* Occidental $2,042,177
* Shell $1,478,831
* Ashland $904,000
* Sunoco $540,000
* Anadarko $250,000

That’s for a total of $33,173,092. Think Progress picks up a Wall Street Journal story to illustrate what you get for $33 million.

Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips beat back an attempt by senators to raise their taxes by nearly $6 billion.

The Senate version of the bill at one point included a provision that would have cost the five largest oil companies — companies with average daily production of 500,000 barrels; gross receipts of more than $1 billion dollars in 2005 and an ownership in a refinery of 15% or more — about $5 billion by changing how they account for oil inventory. House Republicans dropped the provision from the final version of the bill.

A separate Senate measure would have stripped $700 million in tax incentives for large oil companies to explore for oil and gas. That provision, too, was dropped from the compromise bill that emerged from House-Senate negotiations.

The return on investment in lobbying is unbelievable when you look at it. The oil and gas companies spent $33 million and in return they saved $6 billion. Even once you add in campaign contributions - $25,622,789 from 2004, the last full election season - the amount that they put in to system gives them a monumental reward. Something like a 10,000% return on investment.

0 Comments