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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ken Silverstein at Harpers.org provides a look back at a career that looks to be coming to a premature close, that of Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) job as a water carrier for Chevron. Here is one example of the "Congressman from Chevron's" many actions:
In the mid-1990s, Chevron and several other oil companies led a successful campaign to block tough sanctions on the regime of Nigerian general Sani Abacha, who had a habit of stringing up his political enemies, and who also plundered the Nigerian treasury to the tune of about $1 billion a year during his five-year rule. The oil companies helped to produce a lobbying brochure that lauded the special quality of Nigerian crude and said that "any disruption to this supply of imported petroleum will severely impact the American economy.” Jefferson was one of only two members of the Congressional Black Caucus who opposed sanctions on the Abacha dictatorship.
According to Opensecrets.org Jefferson's third largest contributor for his career is the lobby shop representing ChevronTexaco Jones, Walker. They have given Jefferson $47,379 since 1993.