PACing Away the Climate Security Act?

When the Senate begins debate on the Climate Security Act next week, two opposing lobbying forces will line up against each other. On one side will be those organizations—mostly nonprofits—that support the bill. This will include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 13 building trade unions, environmental organizations, and faith groups. The other side will feature some of the richest companies and powerful trade associations in the world. The opponents will include Peabody Energy, ExxonMobil, American Electric Power, and the Chamber of Commerce. Both sides’ lobbyists and advocates will be well-equipped with fact sheets, talking points, and target lists.

These companies and trade associations will have one other crucial tool that the nonprofits lack: millions of dollars in campaign contributions given to the senators who will decide whether we move forward to attack global warming, or continue to do nothing. These funds will provide a huge advantage to the interests who favor denial, delay, and the dilution of solutions.

Campaign contributions almost never buy votes. The conviction of Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) for taking bribes from the defense industry is a unique exception rather than the rule for elected officials. However, donations do buy direct access to legislators, and this makes it easier for special interests to influence them. This access and influence grows along with the galloping need for campaign contributions.

Senators must raise millions of dollars for their election campaigns. In 2006, the average winning senate candidate spent nearly $9 million, and this figure could easily grow to $10 million or more in 2008. This means that senators seeking reelection this year must raise $15,000 per day every day from January 1, 2007 to November 4, 2008. These contributions have to come from somewhere, which is why political action committee and individual donations from the electric utility, coal, oil and gas, auto, and chemical industries are widely sought by senators. These interests all oppose binding reductions in greenhouse gas pollution that causes global warming. And they have undoubtedly made their views known to the largest beneficiaries of their generosity.

A review of campaign contribution data1 from the Center for Responsive Politics finds that the senators who have received the most money from these interests from 1990-2008 are the leading opponents of the Climate Security Act. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), the leading recipient of contributions from the electric utility and chemical industries, will be a leader in the opposition to the Climate Security Act. These two industries gave him more than $1 million combined.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is another fervent opponent of the Climate Security Act and was the top recipient of donations from the coal industry. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is the third largest recipient of oil and gas money, with over $1 million in contributions. He is the Senate’s most vociferous opponent of global warming solutions, and even called warming a “hoax.”

Interestingly, the leading recipient of auto industry money is not from an auto-producing state. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has raised nearly $600,000 from car company political action committees, or PACs, and employees, which is nearly one-third more than Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). He has also raised more from all five interests—nearly $2 million—than 98 other senators. It is unclear what influence these donations have had on Sen. McCain. Recently, he has supported existing tax breaks for big oil companies, and opposed shifting resources to spur renewable energy and efficiency. On May 28th, he indicated that he will miss the votes on the Climate Security Act next week, but opposes it because it does not include subsidies for nuclear power plant construction.

These industries are likely to pursue many weakening amendments to the Climate Security Act. Utilities companies may seek subsidies for nuclear power plants, and delays in compliance rates and dates. Coal mining companies may seek to remove all binding reductions, as well as seek additional subsidies for coal-fired power plants. And the auto industry will likely attempt to “preempt” California and many other states from adopting the California program to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from motor vehicles. Many of the senators near the top of these contribution lists are likely candidates for sponsors such amendments.

In today’s political climate, public policy, legislation, and campaign cash remain tightly intertwined. The fight over global warming solutions reflects this atmosphere with a vengeance because the utility, oil and gas, coal, auto, and chemical companies desperately want to maintain status quo energy policies. Big oil, for instance, has profited mightily from the current energy climate while Americans suffer with $4 per gallon gas prices. Will the senators who received the most money also stand in the way of global warming solutions that will protect our security, economy, and environment?

Data from Center for Responsive Politics.  Charts includes contributions from 1990 to first quarter 2008 for all of the Senators’ federal campaigns: House, Senate, and Presidential races.