Policy update 10/19/10: Midterms 15 days away

In 14 days, the entire House and one-third of the Senate are up for reelection. As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, dirty money from big polluters is having a major effect on this year's elections. While big polluters attack climate champions with ads, new polling from NRDC suggests that voters are more likely to support candidates who voted in favor of the climate bill than those who did not. Last week The Obama Administration caved to pressure from Big Oil by lifting the deepwater drilling moratorium, but also took a step forward by cracking down on a massive new mountaintop removal coal mining project.

Dirty Money in the Election:

With large donors able to contribute unlimited amounts of money anonymously in this year's election, large PACs (Political Action Committees) have formed recently to campaign on behalf of specific candidates. Candidate contribution limits do not apply to these new 'super PACs' so long as they don't "coordinate" with candidates for elected office.

One example of a new super PAC is Alaskans Standing Together, which has spent $600,000 on ads this week on behalf of Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), over twice what her campaign has spent. According to a former adviser to presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ), "these new 'Super PACs' have opened the door to the clearest, easiest way to spend unlimited funds on an election . . .This is pretty much the holy grail that people have been looking for."

Video from fall 2009 shows oil billionaire David Koch (pronounced 'coke') presiding over an Americans for Prosperity (AFP) strategy meeting, where paid organizers, funded by Koch himself, list how many tea party rallies they were responsible for organizing. In the past Koch and his spokespeople have denied his involvement with the tea party, but this footage shows his intimate connection with the organizational structure of the "astroturf" portion of the tea party movement.

How will the House Climate Vote affect Candidates?

The unprecedented influx of money into the November election is taking its toll on many candidates who voted in support of climate action in the House last year. Conventional wisdom in an election would suggest that taking votes in support of President Obama's legislative agenda is what is hurting vulnerable Democrats, but new polling data from NRDC suggests otherwise on the climate bill specifically.

Voters prefer candidates who voted in favor of a climate bill by an average spread of almost 20% in 21 of nation's most competitive congressional districts: Jerry McNerney (CA); Betsy Markey (CO); Alan Boyd (FL); Suzanne Kosmas (FL); Alan Grayson (FL); Leonard Boswell (IA); Debbie Halvorsen (IL); Phil Hare (IL); Frank Kratovil (MD); Mark Schauer (MI); Carol Shea-Porter (NH); Dina Titus (NV); John Hall (NY); Steve Driehaus (OH); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); John Boccieri (OH); Paul Kanjorski (OH); Patrick Murphy (PA); John Spratt (SC); Tom Perriello (VA) and Steve Kagan (WI).

Voters in the survey were presented with arguments for and against the bill, and then asked which side they agree more with: the bill will "[create] millions of new jobs, reduce use of foreign oil, hold corporate polluters accountable, and cut the pollution that causes climate change," versus "the bill will cost companies money and is like an energy tax that would actually reduce jobs."
A vote in favor of climate legislation may attract attacks from big polluters, but these results suggest that a vote in favor of climate legislation on its own helps candidates attract public support. Full report is here.

California's Prop 23

Oil giants like Valero, Tesoro, and the Koch brothers have mounted a massive multimillion dollar campaign in support of Proposition 23, a ballot initiative which would roll back California's historic AB 32 climate law. This "dirty energy proposition" is down by 11 points in the polls right now, but still has a large war chest available for TV advertisements as we approach the final stretch before Election Day.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) has been a vocal supporter of California's climate legislation, and has been speaking out against the oil-financed repeal campaign: "They are creating a shell argument that they are doing this to protect jobs," the governor said. "Does anybody really believe they are doing this out of the goodness of their black oil hearts -- spending millions and millions of dollars to save jobs?"

Kate Sheppard from Mother Jones points out that in 2006 another clean energy ballot measure in California had a similarly comfortable margin of support. However oil companies spent $95 million campaigning against the measure, much of it in the final stretch before the election -- resulting in 54.7% of voters siding with the oil companies against the clean energy proposition. Join the fight to defeat Proposition 23.

Obama Administration Abandons Drilling Moratorium, but Cracks Down on Mountaintop Removal

President Obama abandoned his deepwater drilling moratorium weeks ahead of schedule, caving into persistent attacks from the oil industry. Also last week Obama's EPA got tougher on dirty coal, revoking a permit for what could potentially become the largest mountaintop-removal coal mine in West Virginia. The move to block the mountaintop removal mine was supported by more than 50 members of Congress. 1Sky Campaign Director Liz Butler characterizes the mixed signals being sent from the White House as "schizophrenic."

Climate Literacy in the U.S.

Yale University studied Americans' climate knowledge through a survey. When graded on a scale of A through F, the study found that only 1% of Americans got an "A, " and 52% received an "F." Full report is here (.pdf).

Please direct questions or comments to jason@1sky.org.