The democratic process is supposed to be one person one vote, but it turns out that money is talking louder than the votes.
- James Hansen, March 2009
If you care passionately about an issue, such as climate change, and you would like to vote for a politician that will do the most for your issue, there are only two questions to ask:
1) What does the politician say they will do?
2) Can you trust them?
It’s actually pretty simple. Go to Hillary’s campaign website and click on her climate change page. Then, go to Bernie’s campaign website and look at his climate change page. From my perspective, I think Hillary’s got a great set of renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives, and I think she really understands the complexities of getting more renewable energy in place. However, Bernie seems to really get IT. He seems to understand the urgency of the moment and embraces a more ambitious, if less well-developed, vision. I give a clear edge to Bernie, but it’s not a blow-out.
If this election were all about the first question, I could see a reasonable climate change hawk supporting either candidate. But the climate change community has overwhelmingly supported Bernie, and we all know that it’s because of the second question.
Imagine if She Had Signed the Greenpeace Pledge!
I don’t regularly have lunch with Secretary Clinton. Which is too bad, because if I did, I might, as GWB once did with President Putin, look into her eyes and report back to you the truth. All that I’m left with is her record, her words, and the trail of money that flows around her campaign. As I mentioned above, I like her words and her plans, even if they aren’t inspiring. You can read those words yourself and reach your own conclusions, but, from any objective standpoint, they are pretty good words.
I also find much to like in her record. She co-sponsored a bill that would have extended tax credits for the development of renewable energy and eliminated tax incentives that were flowing to oil and gas companies. She co-sponsored a bill that would have established tradeable allowances for carbon dioxide emissions so that the EPA could set up a cap and trade program. Is cap and trade perfect? No, in 2007 it would have been a good start. And, as Secretary of State, she appointed Todd Stern as the lead climate change negotiator, supported the Copenhagen Accord that would commit $100 billion by 2020 to developing countries to implement climate adaptation projects, and developed several important bilateral agreements with Brazil and China that set the framework the eventual Paris Treaty compromises.
That’s a good record. Let’s not downplay that record. She may also have a habit of supporting initiatives that provide a healthy windfall for corporations (for example, cap and trade would have been very beneficial for Wall Street, the Copenhagen Accord is really a foundation of private donors, not direct foreign aid, etc...), but the proposals were ambitious and they were pushing in the right direction. Again, there’s a lot to support, and a climate change activist could take this record and offer a good defense of Secretary Clinton’s candidacy.
I’d Like To Trust You, But Your Money Is a Bit Oily
When private interests are seen to exert outsized control over officeholders solely on account of the money spent on (or withheld from) their campaigns, the result can depart so thoroughly “from what is pure or correct” in the conduct of Government … that it amounts to a “subversion … of the electoral process.”
- Justice Stevens, Dissent in Citizens United (2010)
Public corruption involves what is seen, and unseen. Only a cramped, narrow reading of the phrase suggests that corruption only occurs if someone sees the bags of money changing hands. Justice Stevens understood that public corruption occurs even if the quid pro quo is never revealed. When substantial sums of money flow from private interests to political candidates (or their spouses), it is only natural for voters to assume some form of corruption. A wiser Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC (2003) put is like this: “Take away Congress’ authority to regulate the appearance of undue influence and ‘the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.’”
Unfortunately, for someone who appears to talk the talk and walk the walk, there’s quite a bit of “undue influence” that appears to be aimed at Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has revealed quite a few of those contributions through their own independent research. She has received direct donations from oil and gas industry lobbyists ($1,488,350) and donations from the oil and gas industry to her SuperPacs ($3,250,000). In total, she is the second largest recipient of oil and gas industry donations in this campaign cycle.
But the influence gets very “undue” when you look at the Clinton Foundation and her past record with the oil and gas industry. As McClatchy reported, the Clinton Foundation received more than $40 million in donations since 2001 from four oil-rich countries: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and United Arab Emirates. These donations all took place while Hillary Clinton was either a U.S. Senator or Secretary of State. What’s most striking is that compared to these countries’ other philanthropic donations, the Clinton Foundation appears to receive the largest share, suggesting that they place the Foundation at the center of their foreign aid contributions.
Oil companies have also donated to the Clinton Foundation while lobbying Secretary Clinton’s State Department. Chevron, ConcocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil all lobbied the State Department to approve the 400-mile Alberta Clipper oil pipeline that would take Canadian tar sands from Canada to Wisconsin. They all subsequently donated between $2.5 million to $3 million to the Clinton Foundation. Chevron in particular has had registered lobbyists bundling for Secretary Clinton, and sponsored
President Clinton has offered a spirited defense of these contributions. The Foundation takes this money to do good work in the world, and if it rejected it, $40 million less good would have been done. OK. I actually agree with President Clinton on this one. The Nature Conservancy has taken corporate money for years and used it to save some of the most ecologically sensitive areas on the planet (with some failures along the way). A foundation can take corporate money and still do good work in the world.
However, it can also be used to deliver a very effective quid pro quo. For example, Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman, received State Department approval for the transfer of uranium mines in Kazakhstan to a Russian-owned business, and the next year donated more than $37 million to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation and Mr. Guistra deny any deal, and there is no hard evidence. Maybe if the Clinton Foundation was transparent, these types of transactions may be less suspicious.
However, the Clinton Foundation has been far from transparent. Despite an agreement with the Obama administration to disclose all foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State, 1,100 donations from foreign donors were not disclosed. And, the Clinton Foundation was set up so that it was entirely plausible that Hillary Clinton could have been personally involved and aware of the Foundation’s deals with oil and gas companies. Huma Abedin, Secretary Clinton’s key aide, was simultaneously employed by the State Department, Secretary Clinton (personally), and the Clinton Foundation (this is now part of the ongoing e-mail investigation). Law firms establish firewalls to protect clients from potential conflicts of interest. There were no such protections in place between Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
Oil Money Makes the World Go Round
The best of the best money. Money coming from people who own oil companies. Typically money from most middle eastern men and referring to their wealth.
- Definition of Oil Money, Urban Dictionary
I don’t know if Hillary has ever accepted a quid pro quo from the oil and gas industry. I’m not a Washington insider, an inside-the-beltway journalist, or a Congressional staffer. What I do know is that the oil and gas industry will do almost anything to prevent effective action on climate change, and they get their way by using their money. Based on excellent reporting by Inside Climate News, we now know that all of the major oil companies were aware of the potential effects of climate change as early as the late 1970s. In fact, the American Petroleum Institute (API) convened a fact-finding task force in 1979 that included a presentation from Professor John A. Laurmann of Stanford University that stated that CO2 in the atmosphere would likely double by 2038, and that models showed a 5 degree C rise by 2067 with “globally catastrophic effects.”
You should let that sink in for a second. In 1979, the oil industry’s main lobbying and research organization sent an internal document to its members telling them that “globally catastrophic effects” would occur because of a predicted 5 degree C rise in temperatures by 2067 because of the burning of fossil fuels. They subsequently engaged in a three-decades-long public relations campaign to discredit and dismiss the science behind climate change. And, they were enormously successful.
In fact, they were so successful that it took 36 years for the world to reach a largely voluntary global agreement to reduce emissions. API targeted the 1998 Kyoto Protocol specifically (the only agreement that has so far set legally binding emission reduction targets), and convinced GWB’s State Department to give up any attempt to ratify the treaty. In a very telling set of talking points from a top State Department official in 2001, it becomes clear that GWB rejected the Kyoto Protocol because of the lobbying efforts of the oil and gas companies, BUT the US would continue to engage in the UN process because “we need to show leadership on this issue to advance U.S. domestic and international policy objectives.” In other words, Kyoto was dead in 2001, but we’ll pretend it isn’t for another seven years.
While the oil companies were handling U.S. domestic politics, Gulf states were derailing international progress. The Rome Treaty (of which the Kyoto Protocol is a part) requires that any major amendment be passed by unanimous consent of the members. This gave the Gulf states, and especially Saudi Arabia, extraordinary leverage to delay and water down international climate agreements. I personally witnessed a Saudi diplomat (with the assistance of the US) attempt to remove any mention of climate change from a General Assembly resolution on coral reefs and sustainable development. It seemed obvious at the time that, like the oil companies, the Saudi strategy was to deny, delay, and defeat. Even in Paris last year, when the entire weight of the diplomatic world had united around action, Saudi Arabia was the lone voice dissenting on a host of absurd issues. For instance, Saudi negotiators claimed that since the tiny island nation of Kiribati would receive aid to deal with the effects of climate change, Saudi Arabia should receive compensation for the lost income from its fossil fuel wealth.
It is a deadly, and incredibly costly, one-two punch. Oil companies capture the Republicans (and a lot of Democrats) and the Gulf states destroy any international progress. When we look back on this period between 1980 (when the industry realized the problem) and 2015 (when the world refocused on global action) the oil companies and the Gulf states will seem like supervillains, and we will all wonder how they were able to maintain their grip on political power. Actually, we won’t wonder at all, because it was all about the money.
Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has donated more than $478 million in total contributions. Of that amount, more than $246 million went to PAC or “soft money” donations. They generally donate to Republicans, but around 20 percent of that money went to Democrats. What’s particularly noteworthy about the distribution of these donations is that when a presidential election roles around, the Democratic presidential candidates suddenly start receiving the donations. Hillary Clinton is already ranked fifth among all politicians in this election cycle for money donated from oil and gas PACs and individuals. In 2008, Barack Obama was ranked 2nd and Hillary Clinton was ranked 9th. No other Democrat is in the top 20 in 2016, and only Bill Richardson and Mary Landrieu were in the top 20 in 2008.
Oil Companies, Undue Influence, and Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
I think most Hillary supporters will have jumped to the comment section at this point to call this a smear. They have a point. I will never be there when the bags of money change hands. I’m just a voter trying to assess the trustworthiness of a candidate running for public office. What I do know is that unlimited donations to SuperPacs, lobbyist donations, and out-sized donations to a spouse’s charitable foundation are examples of “undue influence.” I know that the oil and gas industry protects itself through “undue influence.” They thrive on “undue influence.” They will do anything to exercise “undue influence” over this nation’s climate policies.
As long as that oil money flows in large quantities to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, I cannot trust that she will remain committed to her climate change platform. We don’t have four (or eight) years to wait. We need to know NOW that the candidate we elect in 2016 will fight tooth and nail for action on climate change.
Although I’m pretty strongly with Bernie at this point, there are still some actions that Hillary’s campaign can take to regain trust:
1) Sign the Greenpeace pledge to reject campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
2) Publicly instruct your SuperPacs to refuse all oil industry money.
3) Support a nationwide ban on fracking.
4) Have the Clinton Foundation refuse any future fossil fuel industry donations, and follow some very sensible steps laid out by 350.org.
If Hillary winds up being the nominee, and she takes any of these steps before the general election, I may just donate and volunteer for her campaign. But, as it stands, her hands are still covered in oil.