As is the case with so many other Trump nominations so far, the choice of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency seems something done on a dare. Pruitt is known as a stalwart opponent of environmental protection; until now, the thing he has been most known for on the national stage has been his use of his public office to disseminate industry-written legal arguments copypasted onto his government office's own letterhead.
Oh, and his Republican "Rule of Law Defense Fund" project also just happens to rake in cash from an unknown set of corporate sponsors to pursue a conspicuously similar public agenda. Yes, go figure.
So now six of the Democrats on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee are politely inquiring as to what the hell might be up with that.
Six Democrats on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee wrote to Pruitt on Tuesday asking for the names of donors, meeting information, internal emails and other details related to his director status at the nonprofit, called the Rule of Law Defense Fund. Formed as an offshoot of the Republican Attorneys General Association, the Defense Fund is organized under a section of the tax code that allows it to keep donors secret — but it received $175,000 in 2014 from Freedom Partners, which coordinates the Kochs’ political activities. [...]
"The confirmation process, starting with your responses to committee questions before your hearing, is an opportunity for you to dispel the notion that the advocacy you have undertaken on environmental issues as Attorney General of Oklahoma has been directed by and for the benefit of the energy industry," the Democrats wrote to Pruitt.
This is the not terribly polite way of announcing that Pruitt's apparent crookedness on behalf of the very industries that the EPA is charged with regulating will be a subject of Pruitt's confirmation hearings. It probably won't deter any of the Republicans involved, none of whom harbor any remaining sense of shame, but Pruitt's explanations of just why he outsourced his office's legal opinion-writing to energy companies themselves and exactly what he got in return for it ought to at least make for some informative television.