trade gp assoc 2 bak
merri ok
SEE API
SEE NAM
SEE COC
see SAAB
SEE DEFECTORS bp
trade group as buffer [nb progression: no problem, 2 join GCC, outed corps bail trade gp stays], but also to get control of group means to control its resources eg pr capability (maybe nick confessore re K str)
see open letter (congress testimony, petitions)
see fallback BS
PHRMA is a trade group
see KNEW
see defectors
html Wine & Spirits
===
=-=
ggl 8 26
AI Overview
Major U.S. fossil fuel trade groups and companies—including entities like the American Petroleum Institute and major oil corporations—spent decades running coordinated public relations and lobbying campaigns that downplayed, questioned, or outright denied the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Congressional investigations and extensive archival research show that while internal scientists warned leadership about the warming risks of carbon dioxide as early as the 1970s, the industry publicly promoted doubt to protect profits and delay climate regulations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Evolution of Industry Messaging
- Explicit Denial: Early campaigns labeled climate change science as "unsettled", exaggerated model uncertainties, and attacked mainstream researchers. [1]
- Disinformation and Delay: As scientific proof mounted, strategies shifted toward "doublespeak," lobbying against emission limits, and emphasizing the economic risks of transition. [1, 2, 3]
- Modern Greenwashing: Contemporary efforts often feature public commitments to lower emissions while maintaining core investments and lobbying for the expansion of oil and gas production. [1, 2, 3]
For deep dives into congressional findings on these strategies, read the U.S. Senate Budget Committee Report on Big Oil's Deception. [1, 2]
-=-=
-=-=
AN 3 26
Katie Miller, the podcaster and wife of White House Senior Advisor Stephen Miller, has taken a sudden interest in solar energy. Many observers are wondering why, with the specter of paid shilling looming.
A confidential strategy memo obtained by Politico raises that possibility. There is a campaign underway by members of the renewable energy lobby group to “MAGA-fy solar power,” as the publication terms the bolstering trend.
The memo shows the American Clean Power Association launched the “American Energy First” campaign to engage former President Donald Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway and conservative influencers like Miller “to amplify the benefits of solar energy” and “note the harm that could result from reckless trade policy.”
The memo cites an American Energy First poll showing solar power is popular with Trump’s base.
“As part of the campaign, ACP is working with a series of conservative influencers to secure opinion media placements authored by conservative columnists, former Republican lawmakers,” the memo states.
Miller denies being paid for her posts. “I do not have a paid partnership” with the American Clean Power Association, she said in a statement to Politico.
It’s worth noting that Miller did work full-time for former boss Elon Musk during the early months of Trump’s second stint, and he has extensive investments in solar power and battery storage. She has been a staunch defender of Musk.
While there is speculation about Miller’s motives, many are heartened by her posts.
Renewable energy interest has waned in Trump 2.0, as Republicans ended President Joe Biden-era tax credits for renewables.
President Trump, who has called renewables "unreliable," also signed an executive order calling on the Interior Department to “end preferential treatment” for wind and solar, and the Energy Department dissolved its renewable division, nixing a number of projects in the pipeline.
That means things like the social media become more important.
“We have to try new creative things rather than let this administration drive the narrative with their baseless attacks on solar and wind,” one Senate staffer working on renewable energy issues told Puck.
That has manifested itself on several fronts, including polling favoring renewables among conservatives, and Newt Gingrich publishing an opinion piece in The Daily Caller calling solar a key piece of an “energy abundance” strategy.
The pro-renewables blitz may be working. Puck reports that there is a perceived “softening” in the Trump administration’s rhetoric on solar, while the Interior Department has slightly loosened its permitting process for solar projects.
Whatever the reason for the newfound embrace of solar, the interest in renewable power arrives at a time when oil is choked by the Iran war and domestic needs, particularly for artificial intelligence data centers, are both huge factors.
One renewable that won’t likely benefit, Puck wryly notes: “Trump’s hatred for wind turbines ruining his golf course views runs so deep.”
---
dirty tricks privACY cambr anal
an pro pub 2 25
- Electing Trump: In 2016, the gun industry shared data about firearms owners and others with Cambridge Analytica to help elect Donald Trump and keep a Republican majority in the Senate.
- Legal Worries: The gun industry and Cambridge tried but failed to get more customer data, records show. One gun seller worried about possible government investigations.
- Profiling Gun Owners: Cambridge used the industry’s data to create behavioral profiles of people who had bought guns and other potential voters and then targeted them with specific ads.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.
Arthur Douglas has been passionate about guns his entire life. He spent his childhood hunting, then amassed a treasured collection of firearms, including antique rifles he considers priceless. For years, he’s worked as a firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Concealed Carry Association.
But the 61-year-old building contractor was incensed to learn from ProPublica that his name, age, New Hampshire address, phone number and registered voting status were in a database compiled by the gun industry’s chief lobbying group to help friendly politicians win elections.
Douglas said he never gave anyone permission to use his personal information for political purposes. He considers his privacy rights sacrosanct, like those bestowed by the Second Amendment. “I like the idea that they’re pro-gun advocates,” he said of the gun industry. “I don’t like the idea that they’re getting information, possibly illegally, to forward their agenda.”
Douglas is one of millions of people whose sensitive personal information was compiled over two decades by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, working with some of America’s most iconic gun-makers and retailers. As ProPublica previously reported, the industry group assembled data on this collection of gun owners and others without their knowledge or consent to persuade them to vote in the industry’s interests. The NSSF credited the campaign with landmark victories that vanquished gun control efforts.
What happened to Douglas’ data in the past decade has never before been revealed. It involves a transatlantic transfer to a now-disgraced political firm, questions of illegality and concerns from insiders about the repercussions should authorities discover the secret data sharing. This story, built on interviews and a new cache of internal documents obtained by ProPublica, details for the first time the sophisticated and invasive nature of the gun industry’s electioneering.
The NSSF, based in Shelton, Connecticut, represents thousands of firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors and retailers, along with publishers and shooting ranges. While not as well known as the NRA, the trade group is considered the voice of the industry and is a power broker in business and politics.
In 2016, as part of a push to get Donald Trump elected president for the first time and to help Republicans keep the Senate, the NSSF worked with the consultancy Cambridge Analytica to turbocharge the information it had on potential voters. The U.S. subsidiary of a London-based firm, which would later go out of business amid a global scandal over its handling of confidential consumer data, Cambridge matched up the people in the database with 5,000 additional facts about them that it drew from other sources.
The details were far-ranging and intimate. Along with the potential voters’ income, debts and religious affiliation, analysts learned whether they liked the work of the painter Thomas Kinkade and whether the underwear women had purchased was plus size or petite.
Cambridge analysts ran the enhanced data through an algorithm to create psychological profiles that allowed for more incisive targeting. Potential voters were assigned one of five personality groups: risk-takers, carers, go-getters, individualists and supporters. Each got a tailored message. Risk-takers were viewed as highly neurotic and susceptible to ads that pricked their fears, Cambridge records show. Go-getters, on the other hand, would respond better to messages of optimism and the promise of a better future.
Privacy experts told ProPublica that companies that shared information with the NSSF may have violated federal and state prohibitions against deceptive and unfair business practices. Under federal law, companies must comply with their own privacy policies and be clear about how they will use consumers’ information, privacy experts said. A ProPublica review of dozens of warranty cards from those gun-makers found that none of them informed buyers that their details would be used for political purposes.
“There’s a pretty clear argument that in some of these cases, there is deception and practices that go against the language in the privacy policy,” said Calli Schroeder, senior counsel and global privacy specialist at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
As it did after the presidential election of George W. Bush, the NSSF credited itself with helping Trump win in 2016, paving the way for a radically different American and global era....
---
an 12 24
Federal officials resolved more than a decade ago to crack down on whopping government overpayments to private Medicare Advantage health insurance plans, which were siphoning off billions of tax dollars every year.
But Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials have yet to demand any refunds — and over the years the private insurance plans have morphed into a politically potent juggernaut that has signed up more than 33 million seniors and is aggressively lobbying to stave off cuts.
Critics have watched with alarm as the industry has managed to deflate or deflect financial penalties and steadily gain clout in Washington through political contributions; television advertising, including a 2023 Super Bowl feature; and other activities, including mobilizing seniors. There’s also a revolving door, in which senior CMS personnel have cycled out of government to take jobs tied to the Medicare Advantage industry and then returned to the agency.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Medicare Advantage fraud “is wasting taxpayer dollars to the tune of billions.”
“The question is, what’s CMS doing about it? The agency must tighten up its controls and work with the Justice Department to prosecute and recover improper payments,” Grassley said in a statement to KFF Health News. “Clearly that’s not happening, at least to the extent it should be.”
David Lipschutz, an attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit public interest law firm, said policymakers have an unsettling history of yielding to industry pressure. “The health plans throw a temper tantrum and then CMS will back off,” he said.
Government spending on Medicare Advantage, which is dominated by big health insurance companies, is expected to hit $462 billion this year.
New details of the government’s failure to rein in Medicare Advantage overcharges are emerging from a Department of Justice civil fraud case filed in 2017 against UnitedHealth Group, the insurer with the most Medicare Advantage enrollees. The case is pending in Los Angeles. The DOJ has accused the giant insurer of cheating Medicare out of more than $2 billion by mining patient records to find additional diagnoses that added revenue while ignoring overcharges that might have reduced bills. The company denies the allegations and has filed a motion for summary judgment.
Records from the court case are surfacing as the Medicare Advantage industry ramps up spending on lobbying and public relations campaigns to counter mounting criticism.
While critics have argued for years that the health plans cost taxpayers too much, the industry also has come under fire more recently for allegedly scrimping on vital health care, even dumping hundreds of thousands of members whose health plans proved unprofitable.
“We recognize this is a critical moment for Medicare Advantage,” said Rebecca Buck, senior vice president of communications for the Better Medicare Alliance, which styles itself as “the leading voice for Medicare Advantage.”
Buck said initiatives aimed at slashing government payments may prompt health plans to cut vital services. “Seniors are saying loud and clear: They can’t afford policies that will make their health care more expensive,” she said. “We want to make sure Washington gets the message.”
AHIP, a trade group for health insurers, also has launched a “seven-figure” campaign to promote its view that Medicare Advantage provides “better care at a lower cost,” spokesperson Chris Bond said.
Revolving Door
CMS, the Baltimore-based agency that oversees Medicare, has long felt the sting of industry pressure to slow or otherwise stymie audits and other steps to reduce and recover overpayments. These issues often attract little public notice, even though they can put billions of tax dollars at risk.
In August, KFF Health News reported how CMS officials backed off a 2014 plan to discourage the health plans from overcharging amid an industry “uproar.” The rule would have required that insurers, when combing patients’ medical records to identify underpayments, also look for overcharges. Health plans have been paid billions of dollars through the data mining, known as “chart reviews,” according to the government.
The CMS press office declined to respond to written questions posed by KFF Health News. But in a statement, it called the agency a “good steward of taxpayer dollars” and said in part: “CMS will continue to ensure that the MA program offers robust and stable options for people with Medicare while strengthening payment accuracy so that taxpayer dollars are appropriately spent.”
Court records from the UnitedHealth case show that CMS efforts to tighten oversight stalled amid years of technical protests from the industry — such as arguing that audits to uncover overpayments were flawed and unfair.
In one case, Jeffrey Grant, a CMS official who had decamped for a job supporting Medicare Advantage plans, protested the audit formula to several of his former colleagues, according to a deposition he gave in 2018.
Grant has since returned to CMS and now is deputy director for operations at the agency’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. He declined to comment.
At least a dozen witnesses in the UnitedHealth case and a similar DOJ civil fraud case pending against Anthem are former ranking CMS officials who departed for jobs tied to the Medicare Advantage industry.
Marilyn Tavenner is one. She led the agency in 2014 when it backed off the overpayment regulation. She left in 2015 to head industry trade group AHIP, where she made more than $4.5 million during three years at the helm, according to Internal Revenue Service filings. Tavenner, who is a witness in the UnitedHealth case, had no comment.
And in October 2015, as CMS department chiefs were batting around ideas to crack down on billing abuses, including reinstating the 2014 regulation on data mining, the agency was led by Andy Slavitt, a former executive vice president of the Optum division of UnitedHealth Group. The DOJ fraud suit focuses on Optum’s data mining program.
In the legal proceedings, Slavitt is identified as a “key custodian regarding final decision making by CMS” on Medicare Advantage.
“I don’t have any awareness of that conversation,” Slavitt told KFF Health News in an email. Slavitt, who now helps run a health care venture capital firm, said that during his CMS tenure he “was recused from all matters related to UHG.”
‘Improper’ Payments
CMS officials first laid plans to curb escalating overpayments to the insurers more than a decade ago, according to documents filed in August in the UnitedHealth case.
In a January 2012 presentation, CMS officials estimated they had made $12.4 billion worth of “improper payments” to Medicare Advantage groups in 2009, mostly because the plans failed to document that patients had the conditions the government paid them to treat, according to the court documents.
As a remedy, CMS came up with an audit program that selected 30 plans annually, taking a sample of 201 patients from each. Medical coders checked to make sure patient files properly documented health conditions for which the plans had billed.
The 2011 audits found that five major Medicare Advantage chains failed to document from 12.3% to 25.8% of diagnoses, most commonly strokes, lung conditions, and heart disease.
UnitedHealth Group, which had the lowest rate of unconfirmed diagnoses, is the only company named in the CMS documents in the case file. The identities of the four other chains are blacked out in the audit records, which are marked as “privileged and confidential.”
In a May 2016 private briefing, CMS indicated that the health plans owed from $98 million to $163 million for 2011 depending on how the overpayment estimate was extrapolated, court records show.
But CMS still hasn’t collected any money. In a surprise action in late January 2023, CMS announced that it would settle for a fraction of the estimated overpayments and not impose major financial penalties until 2018 audits, which have yet to get underway. Exactly how much plans will end up paying back is unclear.
Richard Kronick, a former federal health policy researcher and a professor at the University of California-San Diego, said CMS has largely failed to rein in billions of dollars in Medicare Advantage overpayments.
“It is reasonable to think that pressure from the industry is part of the reason that CMS has not acted more aggressively,” Kronick said.
CMS records show that officials considered strengthening the audits in 2015, including by limiting health plans from conducting “home visits” to patients to capture new diagnosis codes. That didn’t happen, for reasons that aren’t clear from the filings.
In any case, audits for 2011 through 2015 “are not yet final and are subject to change,” CMS official Steven Ferraina stated in a July court affidavit.
“It’s galling to me that they haven’t recovered more than they have,” said Edward Baker, a whistleblower attorney who has studied the issue.
“The government needs to be more aggressive in oversight and enforcement of the industry,” he said.
Senior CMS official Cheri Rice recommended in the October 2015 email thread with key staff that CMS could devote more resources to supporting whistleblowers who report overbilling and fraud.
“We think the whistleblower activity could be as effective – or even more effective – than CMS audits in getting plans to do more to prevent and identify risk adjustment overpayments,” Rice wrote.
But the handful of cases that DOJ could realistically bring against insurers cannot substitute for CMS fiscal oversight, Baker said.
“Unfortunately, that makes it appear that fraud pays,” he said.
Spending Surge
In December, a bipartisan group of four U.S. senators, including Bill Cassidy (R-La.), wrote to CMS to voice their alarm about the overpayments and other problems. “It’s unclear why CMS hasn’t taken stronger action against overpayments, despite this being a longstanding issue,” Cassidy told KFF Health News by email.
In January, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called for CMS to crack down, including by restricting use of chart reviews and home visits, known as health risk assessments, to increase plan revenues.
Cassidy, a physician, said that “upcoding and abuses of chart review and health risk assessments are well-known problems CMS could address immediately.”
Advocates for Medicare Advantage plans, whose more than 33 million members comprise over half of people eligible for Medicare, worry that too much focus on payment issues could harm seniors. Their research shows most seniors are happy with the care they receive and that the plans typically cost them less out-of-pocket than traditional Medicare.
Buck, the spokesperson for the Better Medicare Alliance, said that as the annual open enrollment period starts in mid-October, seniors may see “fewer benefits and fewer plan choices.”
The group has ramped up total spending in recent years to keep that from happening, IRS filings show.
In 2022, the most recent year available, the Better Medicare Alliance reported expenses of $23.1 million, including more than $14 million on advertising and promotion, while in 2023, it paid for a featuring seniors in a bowling alley and left viewers with the message: Cutting Medicare Advantage was “nuts.”
Bruce Vladeck, who ran CMS’ predecessor agency from 1993 through 1997, said that when government officials first turned to Medicare managed care groups in the 1990s, they quickly saw health plans enlist members to help press their agenda.
“That is different from most other health care provider groups that lobby,” Vladeck said. “It’s a political weapon that Medicare Advantage plans have not been at all reluctant to use.”
The Better Medicare Alliance reported lobbying on 18 bills this year and last, according to OpenSecrets. Some are specific to Medicare Advantage, such as one requiring insurers to report more detailed data about treatments and services and another to expand the benefits they can offer, while others more broadly concern health care costs and services.
Proposed reforms aside, CMS appears to believe that getting rid of health plans that allegedly rip off Medicare could leave vulnerable seniors in the lurch.
Testifying on behalf of CMS in a May 2023 deposition in the UnitedHealth Group suit, former agency official Anne Hornsby said some seniors might not “find new providers easily.” Noting UnitedHealth Group is the single biggest Medicare Advantage contractor, she said CMS “is interested in protecting the continuity of care.”
---
===
heated ref
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This joint staff report on Big Oil’s decades-long deception campaign is the culmination of a nearly three year-long investigation by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (House Oversight), which has worked with Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee staff during the 118th Congress.
The investigation, focused on ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon), Chevron Corporation (Chevron), Shell USA Inc. (Shell), BP America Inc. (BP), the American Petroleum Institute (AI), and the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber), provides a rare glimpse into the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
This final joint staff report builds on the House Oversight Committee’s earlier hearings, public memoranda, and document releases, and it presents new findings from the investigation.
The key findings include: Documents demonstrate for the first time that fossil fuel companies internally do not dispute that they have understood since at least the 1960s that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and then worked for decades to undermine public understanding of this fact and to deny the underlying science.
In fall 2015, blockbuster reporting by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Big Oil companies such as Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels was a major contributor to climate change. Companies publicly rejected the reporting at the time, but new documents corroborate the reporting and show that fossil fuel companies internally did not dispute the findings but tried to dismiss them as “hyperbolic” and “journalistic malpractice.” Big Oil’s deception campaign evolved from explicit denial of the basic science underlying climate change to deception, disinformation, and doublespeak.
The fossil fuel industry evolved from denying climate science to spreading disinformation and perpetuating doublespeak about the safety of natural gas and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
New documents demonstrate that Big Oil companies: seek to position natural gas as a “bridge fuel” between coal and cleaner, renewable energy, while enmeshing natural gas in the U.S. energy economy for the long-term; seek to portray natural gas as a green, climate-friendly fuel, while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from gas are as bad as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets;
make public pledges to support the Paris Agreement and to achieve net zero emissions while internally recognizing that they could not achieve those goals or referring to them as outside of their business plans;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
privately lobby—either directly or through their trade associations— against pro-climate legislation and regulations that they publicly claimed to support;
publicly celebrate carbon capture technologies to help reduce harmful emissions while privately acknowledging that the technology is expensive and claiming that it cannot be scaled without federal government investment;
and publicly promoted algae-based biofuels as an innovative low-carbon technology while investing little in its research and development and then cancelling the programs entirely.
The fossil fuel industry relies on trade associations to spread confusing and misleading narratives and to lobby against climate action. Fossil fuel companies use trade associations, think tanks, and other nonprofits to influence public policy proposals and messaging, including API and the Chamber, as well as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, Natural Gas Supply Association, and Western States Petroleum Association.
New emails between fossil fuel executives and these groups demonstrate how the companies influenced and leveraged the associations and other organizations to control their messaging and use them to lobby for unpopular proposals that they do not want to be associated with.
The fossil fuel industry strategically partners with universities to lend an aura of credibility to its deception campaigns while also silencing opposition voices. Fossil fuel companies establish funded partnerships with academic institutions to enhance their credibility, shape academic research programs to provide studies supportive of a prolonged life for oil and gas, leverage the resulting research to their advantage, and bolster access to policymakers.
New documents reveal previously unknown funding levels and show how companies condition their funding on academics’ cooperation and alignment with companies’ business needs.
Additional documents demonstrate that companies actively tracked individuals and organizations critical of the industry and monitored their social media. All six entities—Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the Chamber—obstructed and delayed the Committees’ investigation.
Despite valid subpoenas, the entities refused to fully comply with the investigation, making baseless legal arguments and flouting longstanding congressional practices and norms for investigations.
The companies further obstructed the investigation by significantly redacting or entirely withholding more than 4,000 documents without any valid basis...
:{:{II. THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION}:
On October 23, 2019, in view of the risks posed by climate change and public reporting about the role the fossil fuel industry has played in suppressing scientific evidence, the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the House Oversight Committee held the first congressional hearing about climate denialism, “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate Change.” At this hearing, former Exxon scientists confirmed that Exxon knew the reality of climate change as early as the 1970s but concealed that reality from the public. Dr. Martin Hoffert, a former Exxon consultant, testified that Exxon’s actions were “immoral” and “greatly set back efforts to address climate change.”10 }:
Two years later, on September 16, 2021, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long deception campaign.11 The House Oversight Committee sent investigative letters to ExxonMobil (Exxon), BP America Inc. (BP), Shell Oil Company (Shell), Chevron Corporation (Chevron), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber). None of the entities met the deadline for responding to the Committee’s requests for information and documents, and each eventually ...
:{:{:{made only a limited production primarily containing non-substantive, trivial and publicly available materials such as press clippings, regulatory filings, and pages from the entities’ own websites. On October 21, 2021, the House Oversight Committee sent additional letters to all six entities, extending the production due date to October 25, 2021. Still, none of the entities made substantial productions of the key documents the House Oversight Committee requested.12 As a result of their initial obstruction, on November 2, 2021, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed all six entities. 13 }:
The subpoenas required the six entities to produce all documents dating from November 30, 2015, that (1) were sent, received, or created by board members and executives and related to climate change and clean energy, including documents addressing industry marketing and advertising on those topics; (2) were sufficient to demonstrate the amount and itemization of all direct or indirect funding to employees and external contractors related to climate change and clean energy; and (3) related to the entities’ plans to reduce greenhouse gases.14}:
:{:{ Even after receiving these subpoenas, the entities failed to comply fully— or, in some cases, at all—as discussed in Chapter 6 of this staff report. As part of its investigation, the House Oversight Committee also held hearings demonstrating the ways that Big Oil was fueling the climate crisis. At the first hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil’s Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action,” CEOs from Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell, API, and the Chamber testified. House Oversight Committee Members questioned the CEOs about their organizations’ roles in the fossil fuel industry’s “long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.”15}:
At the second hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Climate Pledges,” climate and environmental experts testified about “the urgent need for fossil fuel companies to fundamentally alter their operations and reduce emissions, and assess[ed] whether the companies’ climate pledges will meet that goal, or are instead just the latest example of climate disinformation.”16 At the final hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Prices, Profits, and Pledges,” individuals directly affected by the climate crisis offered firsthand accounts about surviving climate change-induced severe weather events. In a second panel,}:}:
...
:{:{experts on economic, environmental, and energy policy examined Exxon’s, Chevron’s, BP’s, and Shell’s record-breaking profits and the inadequacy of their climate pledges.17 In September 2022, in connection with that third hearing, and again in December 2022, the House Oversight Committee released memoranda and documents obtained by the Committee. These memoranda and documents showed that fossil fuel companies had misled the public and investors about their supposed commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and had continued to obstruct the House Oversight Committee’s investigation despite being subpoenaed. 18}:
Alongside this joint staff report, the House Oversight Committee’s Democratic staff, at the direction of Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, is releasing additional documents obtained through the investigation commenced during the 117th Congress. These documents further demonstrate that fossil fuel companies—directly and through their trade associations—worked in concert to deceive the public and investors and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions}:
---
doublespk ch
:{:{...B. Emissions Reductions Policies}:
Beyond methane, companies contradicted their public positions supporting emissions reduction by directly lobbying against climate legislation and regulations or by funding candidates who opposed them. One series of documents highlights BP’s strategy to oppose climate policies. A document from 2016 states that its Communications and External Affairs (C&EA) “team exists entirely to protect BP’s license to operate in the U.S., help BP businesses achieve their objectives in the United States and protect the company’s reputation.”
The document instructs that those goals can be achieved by “develop[ing] and wag[ing] strategic campaigns that favorably influence legislative, regulatory and public opinion outcomes,” mitigating “the potentially harmful impact of ... detrimental policy and political developments,” and expanding “the company’s capacity to influence regulators on key climate-related initiatives.”137 A similar 2016 document emphasizes that BP’s primary goal was to remain “a trusted voice for those who can influence BP’s ability to operate in the U.S.,” including by “preventing harmful legislation or regulation (examples include climate, ozone, RFS, Dodd Frank, exports, and taxes.)”138 }:
In Alaska, BP’s C&EA team aimed to “support passage of LNG [liquid natural gas—or methane gas] project enabling legislation in 2016 and voter approval of a constitutional amendment on the November 2016 ballot.”139
A 2020 draft email shows BP mobilized its employees and retirees to elect preferred candidates in Texas who would oppose climate regulations. BP encouraged employees to contribute to BP’s employee PAC (BPEPAC). The email states that “BPEPAC is used to advance the interests of BP in America by making political contributions to candidates or organizations who share our philosophy on energy advancement and climate.
Contributions are approved by the BPEPAC Board to candidates based on recommendations from several stakeholders, including our government and public affairs team.”140 The draft email argues that “Texas [was] shifting politically,” meaning that:...
---
CHAPTER 4: FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY COLLABORATION
Fossil fuel companies rely on trade associations, think tanks, and other nonprofits to spread misleading narratives to the public, without having to put their names directly on advertisements, lobbying, or PR campaigns.186 They work together to ensure that their messaging and financial contributions to these third-party groups are consistent. Several documents uncovered in the course of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation showcase the collaboration between fossil fuel companies and their trade associations and other industry groups.
:{I.:{ FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATIONS}: AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
An armada of trade associations, organizations, and coalitions works with and for fossil fuel companies to perpetuate deceptive and misleading industry narratives; API and the Chamber were direct subjects of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation. Documents also shed light on other organizations the fossil fuel companies coordinate with—or take advantage of—to obstruct climate progress. A. American Petroleum Institute API is the nation’s leading oil and gas trade organization. Its membership includes 600 oil and gas companies, including major corporations in upstream, midstream, and downstream operations such as BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.187 Through initiatives like API Energy Excellence and the Climate Committee, API portrays itself as engaging in environmental and safety progress by encouraging the development of new technologies and transparent reporting.188 }:
:{However, API’s Climate Action Framework, purportedly aimed at accelerating low-carbon technologies and innovation, mitigating emissions, and advocating for government carbon pricing policies, has been criticized for a “lack of specifics.”189 Its focus on carbon pricing was belied by an Exxon lobbyist “caught on camera ... saying that a carbon tax will never happen and that support for the measure was a public relations ploy intended to stall more serious measures.”190}:
API serves as a hub for industry coordination against climate progress. In 2018, Exxon CEO Darren Woods assumed the role of chairman of API’s board of directors. He emailed other board members, including representatives from Shell, BP, Chevron, Enbridge, Anadarko, Noble, Marathon, Phillips66, and Conoco, and noted that API’s upcoming Executive Committee meeting would include a “strategic alignment” segment to focus on “WHAT gaps we have vs. WHY we have them (i.e. no finger pointing/blame games).”
He described that the meeting’s objective was to “put together an assessment of API’s strengths, opportunities and ideas for potential improvements,” including “above and beyond advocacy priorities,” based on “an ExxonMobil view.” 191 This email illustrates that fossil fuel companies directly determine API’s strategy to undermine and oppose climate legislation and regulations.}:
...
B. United States Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber has long played an organizing and convening role for the fossil fuel industry, opposing climate action and preserving business as usual. In 2007, for example, the Chamber ran television advertisements against climate legislation claiming that it would prevent people from heating their homes and driving to work. The Chamber publicly opposed significant climate legislation including the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that died in the Senate in 2010.192 In 2014, the Chamber convened “about 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists” to devise “a legal strategy for dismantling the climate change regulations” they expected to be promulgated by the Obama Administration.193
The Chamber has repeatedly been labeled one of the most powerful political opponents to climate progress in the United States.194 Last year, independent researchers at InfluenceMap released renewed evidence of the Chamber’s persistent lobbying against climate policies.
According to InfluenceMap, the Chamber has “continued opposition to meaningful legislation and regulation introduced by the federal government” while simultaneously issuing “positive PR […] to create the impression of reform for climate-conscious investors and corporate members.”195
As Politico explained, the InfluenceMap analysis demonstrated that the Chamber’s “positions on climate policies mostly reflect the views of its fossil fuel members.”196 Notably, the Chamber has refused to disclose, even to its members, the extent of its funding from fossil fuel interests.}:
The Chamber has opposed various legislative climate efforts.197 In 2022, the Chamber sought to block the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate bill Congress has ever passed. It funded ads specifically aimed at pressuring the U.S. senators from Arizona to vote against the bill.198 On the regulatory side, the Chamber opposes the EPA’s recent “Power Plant Rule,” a proposed rule that would protect public health and reduce harmful pollutants while delivering up to $85 billion in climate and health benefits over the next two decades.199 }:
:{:{The Chamber opposes EPA’s recent proposed rules for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.200 }:
The Chamber opposed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed climate disclosure rules, writing that they “exceed the SEC’s lawful authority and are vast and unprecedented in their scope, complexity, rigidity and prescriptive particularity.”201
In courtrooms, as a litigant and as an amicus curiae, the Chamber has a long history of opposing climate rules and laws, and supporting deregulatory theories propounded by polluting industries to fetter people’s ability to protect themselves from pollution and climate harms.202}:}:
C. Oil and Gas Climate Initiative
:{:{OGCI is a CEO-led effort that claims to assist the oil and gas industry in curtailing its greenhouse gas emissions, primarily by advocating for CCUS and methane emissions reduction initiatives. Comprised of 12 of the world’s largest energy companies, OGCI members collectively account for approximately one-third of the global oil and gas supply.203}:
While OGCI attempts to}:
:{:{“promote a climate-friendly image,” its stated goal to reach net zero emissions omits Scope 3 emissions,—i.e., the emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels for energy—which “make up the vast majority of an oil company’s total carbon footprint.”204 Members include BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. Exxon and Chevron were initially hesitant about joining OGCI at its outset but ultimately became members in 2018.205 Documents demonstrate that Exxon hesitated because of concerns that the group was “very disorganized, its overarching propose [sic] / objective was generally unclear and that the governance was basically undefined.”206}:
Exxon revisited the matter in 2015 after Shell and BP had joined but still believed that the initiative was “more about ‘window dressing’ in preparation for COP21 [the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference] than trying to achieve lasting results.”207 Once Exxon did join the group, it provided “critical edits” for OGCI announcements, statements, and its annual report, with which Chevron was “generally aligned.” Some of these edits included removing references to the Paris Agreement and language that “potentially commits members to enhanced climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics and targets.”208 These memoranda demonstrate the collaboration among [no gfx]}:
:{:{fossil fuel companies to control messaging of organizations of which they are members to avoid additional commitments regarding climate.}:
D. Natural Gas Supply Association
The Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) is the sole domestic trade association focusing on producer-marketer issues within the natural gas industry.209 NGSA’s membership includes nine of the largest natural gas suppliers in the country, including BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.210 The association is a partner organization of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, which advocates for the interests of the LNG industry.211 Publicly, NGSA expresses support for achieving economy-wide net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, in alignment with the Paris Agreement goals. 212 }:
But NGSA opposes certain “inappropriate” regulations that hinder its members’ ability to provide “affordable and reliable” natural gas—an objective that often conflicts with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.213 In June 2021, NGSA emailed its “Business Leadership Committee” asking for feedback from its members in crafting a response to Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who was quoted as saying that natural gas should only be considered clean in a Clean Energy Standard if combined with CCS. BP internally expressed concern that the “Administration [was] moving towards squeezing out gas” and asked, “what we need to be doing with Administration (besides pushing f
[no gfx]
...
E. Western States Petroleum Association
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) is one of the oldest oil and gas trade associations in the United States. BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell are members, among others. InfluenceMap describes the organization as “actively engaged on climate policy with strongly negative positions, particularly on state-level policy in California, Washington, and Oregon.”215 WSPA has lobbied against bills designed to reduce emissions, including by working to establish a network of “citizen activist” groups in western states.216
Two key documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal BP’s comprehensive campaign in Washington, in collaboration with WSPA, to oppose state and local policies that would have cut climate-warming emissions. After a Washington county proposed an ordinance that would require one of BP’s refineries to reduce its carbon emissions and make it more difficult to obtain permits to expand or upgrade refineries, BP launched a statewide campaign to oppose it. In an internal memorandum, BP outlined a planned “$300,000 advocacy campaign to build opposition to the proposal in its current form and persuade local officials to amend, postpone or give up on the plan.”217
The document noted that WSPA would “also run a coordinated $200,000 grassroots voter activation campaign on behalf of its membership.”218 In the memorandum, BP explained that, “given the opposition to our industry in this area of the United States[,] ... we are also developing a comprehensive Washington State strategy” for “managing business and reputational risk from our West Coast operations” in the long-term.219 A document from a few months after the memorandum shows how BP’s statewide strategy evolved. 220
In the document, BP identified a handful of key actions and investments to exert its influence in the region. BP planned to enhance “external education, community engagement, political influence and advocacy [that] can change the narrative, stem the flow of bad policy and create opportunities for business growth.”221 The team asked for a “significant increase in C&EA funding” as well as $2.5 million to construct a salmon hatchery that, officials believed, “would change the dynamic of how the public and elected officials view the refinery.” The team requested between $2.5 and $4.5 million for “hard persuasion” tactics, such as television advertising, and $300,000 for “soft persuasion” to be invested in the community and grow support that “will be helpful with elected officials.”222 BP believed that its Washington strategy was necessary because they feared that their reputation would “only get worse unless we change the public's perception of us and the elected official’s lack of respect for our business.”223
II. ABUSE OF THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM COUNCIL
The National Petroleum Council (NPC) serves as a domestic advisory committee representing oil and gas industry views to the Secretary of Energy. Housed within the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, NPC consists of approximately 200 individuals appointed by the Secretary. According to the agency, these members serve without compensation as representatives of industry or associated interests collectively, not as delegates of specific companies or affiliations.224
NPC members currently include David Lawler, Chairman and President of BP America Inc.; Michael Wirth, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Chevron Corporation; Darren Woods, Chairman, President, and CEO of ExxonMobil Corporation; and Gretchen Watkins, President of Shell USA Inc.225
Despite the agency’s assertion that members act independently, it is clear that the direct involvement of top fossil fuel executives has allowed them to influence NPC’s work in a way that benefits their companies’ interests.
For example, Exxon produced NPC’s Topic Paper #1, Role of Natural Gas in a Low Carbon Economy. In one of the later versions of this document, edits sent around by Southwestern Energy, a fossil fuel company, removed all references to natural gas’s “potential greater use to displace higher carbon intensive fossil fuels,” such as coal and oil, despite industry claims that natural gas is a bridge fuel between these more carbon intensive fossil fuels and a clean energy future.226 }:
NPC’s most recent report, released in 2019, focused on the expansion of carbon capture deployment domestically.227 Meeting minutes show that the report was led by BP America and included ExxonMobil, Total, and Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation among others, as part of the Coordinating Subcommittee (CSC) for the study. The meeting minutes show that McKinsey & Company would provide support to the study, including interviews with companies on the NPC study.228 }:
:{:{CSC “agreed to work language to reduce reputation risk” for the fossil fuel companies involved.229 NPC’s report sought to describe a “roadmap” to scaling up carbon capture deployment in the energy and industrial sectors as a fossil fuel-friendly climate “solution.” The report did not mention that industry investment was inadequate to employ carbon capture technology at a scale necessary to meet ambitious climate targets. However, the cost should not have been any surprise to the companies. As far back as 2007, then-CEO of ExxonMobil and Chairman of NPC Lee Raymond acknowledged that carbon capture is “a huge, huge undertaking ... and the cost is going to be very, very significant.”230}:
Companies did not invest sufficiently in the technology, leading the IEA to characterize the fossil fuel industry’s reliance on carbon capture to reduce emissions as “an illusion.”231 Fossil fuel companies not only fail to invest in carbon capture technologies at scale but also then use the mere existence of the technologies to justify new oil and gas projects.}:}:
CHAPTER 5: TARGETING UNIVERSITIES, THE PRESS, AND CRITICS
I. CULTIVATING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS ...
===
===
https://www.alternet.org/big-oil-outspent-green-groups/ no lnx grfx vid
Big oil spent 27 times more than green groups to keep fossil fuels flowing
Charles Downie , Robert Brulle and The Conversation February 13, 2023
You’ve probably seen ads promoting gas and oil companies as the solutions to climate change. They’re meant to be inspiring and hopeful, with scenes of a green, clean future.
But shiny ads are not all these companies do to protect their commercial interests in the face of a rapidly heating world. Most also provide financial support to industry groups that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on political activities, often to thwart polices designed to slow climate change.
For example, The New York Times recently reported on the Propane Education and Research Council’s attempts to derail efforts to electrify homes and buildings in New York, in part by committing nearly US$900,000 to the New York Propane Gas Association, which flooded social media with misleading information about energy-efficient heat pumps.
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents oil refiners and petrochemical firms, has spent millions on public relations campaigns, such as promoting a rollback of federal fuel efficiency standards.
These practices have been going on for decades, and evidence shows that industry groups have played key roles in blocking state and federal climate policies. This matters not just because of the enormous sums the groups are spending, but also because they often act as a command center for political campaigns to kill pro-climate policies.
We study the political activities of industry groups. In a recent research paper, we dug through tax filings to follow the money trail of trade associations engaged on climate change issues and track the billions they have spent to shape federal policy.
What we found
After NASA scientist James Hansen sounded the alarm on climate change in 1988, three trade associations – the National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute – banded together with a couple of electrical utilities to form the Global Climate Coalition, or GCC.
The GCC systematically opposed any international regulation of climate-warming emissions, and successfully prevented the U.S. from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This was the first example of trade associations working together to stall government action on climate change. Similar efforts continue today.
So, how much do trade associations spend on political activities, such as public relations? As not-for-profit organizations under the Internal Revenue Code, trade associations have to report their revenue and spending.
We found that trade associationshistorically opposed to climate policies spent $2 billion in the decade from 2008 to 2018 on political activities, such as advertising, lobbying and political contributions. Together, they outspent climate-supporting industry groups 27 to 1.
The oil and gas sector was the largest, spending $1.3 billion. Across the 89 trade associations we examined in nine different sectors of the U.S. economy between 2008 and 2018, no other group of trade associations came close.
No. 1 expense: Advertising and promotion
What came as more of a surprise as we were tallying up the data was how much trade associations are spending on advertising and promotion. This can include everything from mainstream media ads promoting the industry to hiring public relations firms to target particular issues before Congress.
For example, until they parted ways last year, Edelman, the world’s largest public relations firm, received close to $30 million from American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers to promote fossil fuels, reporters at the online news site Heated found.
Our study found that trade associations engaged on climate change issues spent a total of $2.2 billion on advertising and promotion between 2008 and 2018, compared with $729 million on lobbying. As 2022 lobbying data shows, their spending continues. While not all of this spending is directly targeting climate policy, climate change is one of the top political issues for many industries in the energy sector.
Media buys are expensive, but these numbers also reflect the specific role trade associations play in protecting the reputation of the firms they represent.
[Oil: Power Past Impossible
youtu.be]
One reason that groups like the American Petroleum Institute have historically taken the lead running negative public relations campaigns is so that their members, such as BP and Shell, are not tarred [heh] with the same brush, as our interviews with industry insiders confirmed.
However, many firms are now coming under pressure to leave trade associations that oppose climate policies. In one example, the oil giant Total quit API in 2021, citing disagreements over climate positions.
Spending on social media in the weeks ahead of theU.S. midterm elections and during the U.N. Climate Conference in November 2022offers another window into these groups’ operations.
:{:{}:
}:
A review by the advocacy groupClimate Action Against Disinformationfound that 87 fossil-fuel-linked groups spent roughly $3 million to $4 million on more than 3,700 ads through Facebook’s parent company alone in the 12 weeks before and during the conference.
Revealed: Facebook received millions for ads promoting fossil fuel
youtu.be]
The largest share came from a public relations group representing the American Petroleum Institute and focused heavily on advocating for natural gas and oil and discussing energy security. America’s Plastic Makers spent about $1.1 million on climate-related advertising during the two weeks of the U.N. conference.
Funneling money to think tanks and local groups
:{:{}:
}:
Trade associations also spent $394 million on grants to other organizations during the decade we reviewed. For example, they gave money to think tanks, universities, charitable foundations and political organizations like associations of mayors and governors.
While some of these grants may be philanthropic in nature, among the trade associations we spoke to, most have a political purpose in mind. Grants channeled to local community groups, as one example, can help boost an industry’s reputation among key constituent groups, and as a result their social license to operate.
What this means for climate policy
Fossil fuel companies, which reported record profits in 2022, still spend more on political activities than their trade associations do.
But industry groups historically opposed to climate policies are also big spenders, as our research shows. They outspent those that support actions to slow climate change, such as the solar and wind industries, by a whopping $2 billion to $74.5 million over the 10 years we reviewed.
:{:{}:
}:
This likely helps to explain why it took Congress almost 35 years after Hansen first warned representatives about the dangers of climate change to pass a major climate bill, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
===
===
trade groups well rep at COPs (esp at "side mtgs") IETA, int'l CoC etc push for market based non-binding ; note also bunch of 2ndary to API, alphabet soup accf, ippa etc
===
desmog 12 22
Industry trade associations in the United States that work on climate and energy issues spent more than $3 billion over 10 years on political activities, according to a new study that sheds light on trade associations’ role in influencing policies and obstructing climate action.
The new paper by scholars Robert Brulle of Brown University and Christian Downie of The Australian National University, published Monday in the journal Climatic Change, examined the political spending of nearly 90 U.S. trade associations from 2008 to 2018. The analysis, based on combing through trade associations’ IRS filings, found that these organizations spent $3.4 billion on climate-related political activities. It also found that what they spent the most money on wasn’t lobbying or campaign contributions — as had been previously assumed — it was advertising and promotion.
Out of the $3.4 billion in total political activity spending, almost $2.2 billion of it went towards advertising and public relations. Trade groups in the oil and gas sector were the largest spender in this category, pouring more than $1 billion into it. These findings are consistent with a previous analysis done by the Climate Investigations Center that found that major U.S. fossil fuel trade associations spent $1.4 billion on advertising and PR between 2008 and 2017. The American Petroleum Institute alone accounted for nearly half of that sum.
“Trade associations in the gas and oil sector engage in a high level of public relations spending,” Brulle and Downie wrote in their new study.
It is no secret that companies in carbon-intensive industries engage their trade associations to lobby and advertise on their behalf in order to stave off climate policies. Relying on these organizations to influence policy outcomes and public opinion is a documented tactic of polluting corporations, and yet, according to Brulle and Downie, scholarly research focusing specifically on trade associations in the context of climate change is sparse. Their study aims to fill this gap.
“This is a landmark study, looking at the role of fossil fuel corporate trade associations, which are a big part of the multi billion dollar influence peddling industry in Washington DC and across our country,” Kert Davies, director of the Climate Investigations Center, said via email.
“The climate policy war is among the biggest and most consequential fights of the past three decades” Davies added. “The corporations have largely had the upper hand and won the battles. Trade associations have been a big part of their power. This study shows the billions of dollars fossil fuel interests have spent to improve their image and standing in the policy arena.”
[brulle twt]
according to one expert in climate disinformation and the PR industry, this research further shows how fossil fuel trade associations rely on PR and advertising firms to purchase public trust.
“By supporting trade association clients, some communications firms are playing an overtly political role — both manipulating public understanding of climate solutions and enabling climate policy obstruction on behalf of the oil and gas industry. As the study notes, this is one of the primary reasons that states are failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In my view, it’s also the PR and ad industry’s greatest contribution to the climate crisis itself,” Christine Arena, founder of the production company Generous Films and a former vice president at Edelman, told DeSmog.
The hefty spending by trade associations on advertising and promotion in comparison to other activities, like lobbying, was a significant finding of the study,according to one of its authors.
“Many would expect that lobbying would be the leading activity. However, this was not the case,” Downie explained via email. “Total spending on advertising and promotion totaled $2.2 billion, more than three times that spent on lobbying over the same period, which equaled $729 million.”
Trade associations examined by the study include those in sectors identified as generally opposed to climate action, such as oil and gas, utilities, transportation, and coal/steel/rail, as well as the renewable energy sector which is generally supportive of climate action. Sectors generally opposed to climate action spent about $2 billion overall through their trade associations compared to $74.5 million spent by trade associations supportive of climate action, the study found. One limitation of the analysis was that the data did not allow for the researchers to distinguish between different policy issues, meaning the spending totals are not exclusively indicative of spending on climate issues.
However, the results do offer insight into how much money trade associations are pouring into various activities, and given that the industries studied do engage on climate, the analysis offers a sense of how these organizations are influencing climate politics.
“Ultimately, our findings highlight the sum of trade associations’ political activity, and the important role they can play as opponents of climate action,” Brulle and Downie conclude.
And according to Arena, this kind of research is important to demonstrating the problem of corporate influence in climate policy and then taking steps to address it.
“The fossil fuel industry’s answer to increasing public scrutiny is to spend more money on influence and advertising, rather than shifting its business model,” she said. “The spending spree has worked to shield the fossil fuel industry from regulatory intervention and maintain its social license to operate.This is a difficult cycle to break, given the $2.2 billion that trade association clients are putting into their campaigns. Agencies are understandably reluctant to abandon such profitable contracts, which is why empirical evidence illustrating the problems and corresponding interventions from activists and lawmakers are needed in order to break the destructive cycle.”
===
===
CORP ROLE
12 22 kpfa
17 (so gop) states pass laws to prot dark $
eg 1
in a state with a reputation for political scandal, Florida’s 2020 elections saw a particularly brazen scheme to swing three state Senate races.A “dark money” group sent out mailers promoting the campaigns of three “sham” candidates—in one case, diverting enough votes to a candidate with the**same last name**as former Democratic Sen. José Javier Rodríguez to defeat him. Rodríguez lost by just 32 votes, and Democratic candidates in the other two districts were defeated as well.
The Orlando Sentinel reported that the group behind the misleading mailers, which has renamed itself as Grow United, received a $1.15 million donation from an organization closely tied to the business trade association Associated Industries of Florida. A Dec. 2 Sentinel investigation detailed the group’s consultants’ close coordination withelectric monopoly Florida Power & Light, as well as the power utility’s ties to state Republican leaders, who control the chamber and can block bills like one that would empower solar electricity generators.
Florida organizations supporting Democrats also donated $700,000 to Grow United to obscure the funding source behind expenses like election mailers,a revelation that led to the resignation of a senior House adviser.
Last month, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs launched an investigation into one of Grow United’s donors. The “sham” candidate in Rodriguez’s race pled guilty last August and is cooperating in testimony against the consultant who allegedly put him up to it, former Republican state Sen. Frank Artiles. Artiles has pled not guilty in the case.
With dark money rampant in the state, especially in state Democratic primaries, a Florida Republican is seeking to make it a crime for public officials to request or release information about the sources of money behind election spending by groups that are not required to reveal their donors.
In January, Republican Florida Rep. Toby Overdorf introduced the Personal Information Protection Act (H.B. 1547), which would prohibit public agencies from requesting that any individual, corporation, or other entity release personal information besides what is already required by campaign finance and other laws, or when they have a lawful warrant to seek the information. The bill would also prohibit agencies from publishing such information they may have in their possession. Florida Senator Joe Gruters introduced a similar bill in the Senate (S.B. 1848) that would do the same thing, but only for personal information of donors and other individuals affiliated with 501(c)(3) organizations, though its sponsor says he’s willing to broaden it to cover other types of groups. Each bill would allow for the right of civil action and violators could face possible prison time of up to 90 days.
The House version would prevent campaign finance regulators from trying to force non-disclosing organizations like (c)(4) nonprofits to reveal their donors when they spend money to influence elections in the state.
The new Florida bill is modeled after a policy propagated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit that brings together corporate lobbyists with conservative lawmakers to advance legislation that favors business interests. Rep. Overdorf is one of about 31 Florida elected officials listed as ALEC members as of April 2021, according to a state public records request from the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). Gruters is the chair of the Florida Republican Party, re-elected to that position last month, and is a close ally of former President Trump, having co-chaired his 2016 state campaign.
In recent years, such bills criminalizing the disclosure of politically-active nonprofits’ donors have spread to a number of states, passing into law in 2021 in Arkansas, Iowa, South Dakota, and Tennessee.
“These types of bills are unnecessary—there are already constitutional protections for donors that would actually face threats, harassment, or reprisal from public identification—and their only true achievement may be to simply impede transparency for politically active nonprofits and make dark money darker,” said Aaron McKean, legal counsel for state and local reform at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which works to increase transparency in democracy.
“Voters have a right to know which wealthy special interests are spending big money to influence their vote and rig the political system in their favor,” said McKean. “Florida’s legislators should be focused on ensuring voters know the true sources of money used to influence elections.”
A poll commissioned by the Campaign Legal Center previously found strong bipartisan support for “publicly disclosing contributions to organizations involved in elections” so that wealthy special interests cannot operate with impunity and politicians can be held accountable.
florida has led the nation in public corruption convictions for much of the past couple decades. From 1976 to 2018, Florida was among the top 10 states in federal corruption convictions per 10,000 residents, according to a report from the University of Illinois at Chicago.
A longtime state ethics watchdog tells Sludge that the practice of routing funds through dark money groups will proliferate in the state until the Legislature has the political will to stop it.
“I don’t think there will be any reduction in dark money in elections, it’s just going to increase,” said Ben Wilcox, research director of the nonprofit Integrity Florida. “The campaign finance system in Florida is so dysfunctional, it makes this sort of activity so easy to do, and easy to hide the source of campaign donations. There are all sorts of loopholes.”
With the end of Florida’s legislative session coming next month and the bills not gathering co-sponsors, Wilcox thinks that the state’s investigation into the Grow United case has likely chilled their support this year. But Wilcox tells Sludge, “The fact that they filed the bills this year, to further protect the sources of dark money, it tells you whether or not the bills pass this year, they probably will come next year. The powers that be are intent on keeping dark money dark.”
Wilcox also pointed to a loophole in state campaign finance law that allows unlimited donations to state political committees controlled by politicians. “It’s a form of legal corruption,” he said.
“When you look at Florida Power & Light, they give the maximum to various candidates, and then all the big money goes into the political committees, donations of $100,000 and more.” State campaign finance records show that in recent years, the committee Friends of Ron DeSantis has received donations of over $10 million total from Citadel hedge fund manager and GOP megadonor Ken Griffin, $850,000 from investment company Spring Bay Capital, $200,000 from Kane Financial Services, and nearly $125,000 from the Florida Home Builders Association, among many others.
Last May, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law S.B. 1890, a bill sponsored by Republican State Sen. Ray Rodrigues, that would have set a $3,000 cap on contributions to political committees supporting or opposing constitutional amendments until the measure obtains enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Florida lawmakers left untouched the ability for donors to make unlimited donations to candidates’ political committees. The law was blocked in federal court on July 1, the day it was slated to take effect, and in August Florida’s Attorney General did not appeal, leaving the injunction in place.
The Tampa Bay Times reported last month that lobbyist Jorge Chamizo provided the bill language to staff of Senate sponsor Gruters, working on behalf of two groups: People United for Privacy and Opportunity Solutions Project.According to CMD, which tracks dark money groups, People United for Privacy was formed by the State Policy Network, an umbrella organization of right-wing causes. Opportunity Solutions Project is the advocacy arm of the Florida-based Foundation for Government Accountability, a State Policy Network member.
This year, Jorge Chamizo is registered to lobby for a long list of business clients, including Associated Industries of Floridaand Duke Energy, which was an ALEC member as recently as 2020. Other clients of Chamizo this year include Peoples Gas System, Tampa Electric Company, health insurer Anthem, health care provider Centene, and Uber.
===
===
docket
microsoft is a prominent example of an American company walking a public relations tightrope on climate change. It professes a serious commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, touts its clean energy bonafides and vocally supports the Paris Climate Agreement and the dire need to combat a growing climate crisis. But it also remains a member of a trade group, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which has worked for decades to delay action on climate change and defend the fossil fuel companies whose products cause it.
NAM, in fact, has been so proactive in anti-climate action projects that it draws comparisons to its support for the tobacco industry as it faced a liability battle in the 1980s. NAM, along with other trade groups, backed tobacco companies as they faced hundreds of lawsuits and were charged with racketeering by the federal government for deceiving the public about the catastrophic health hazards of smoking.
NAM has even hired the same law firm that defended the tobacco industry to launch an assault on climate liability lawsuits.
As then, NAM’s member companies face public pressure for supporting those efforts. Microsoft, along with other companies, including Intel and Proctor and Gamble, told Climate Liability News that they disagree with NAM’s actions and policy positions on climate change.
But they have not ended their memberships. While other climate change-denying groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council have suffered membership losses because companies like Google and Apple felt they could no longer be publicly associated with its tactics, NAM has experienced no such repercussions so far.
“The views expressed by NAM do not reflect Microsoft’s position on climate change,” a Microsoft spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Microsoft is committed to sustainability and addressing climate change. We work with many groups on various technology policy issues and do not expect that any organization’s agenda will align to ours in all policy areas.”
The Trade Group Tango
Whether a company joins—and remains—a member of NAM or any trade group depends on how much it agrees with the association’s activities and how its membership in the association affects its reputation, said Michael Barnett, a professor of management & global business at Rutgers Business School who has studied trade groups.
“[Trade associations] are effective by influencing what others outside the industry think of the industry, like regulators, like customers, like communities,” Barnett said.
Trade groups help shield individual companies from the public relations backlash of lobbying on behalf of their industry. They often work as organizing forces to oppose regulation of industries and to lobby government for favorable laws and policies.
“The member firms want cover, they want that legitimacy, they want an improved reputation, but they don’t want to do those things necessary to gain that,” Barnett said. “It’s sort of like they’ve hired a personal trainer and they want that trainer to say, ‘Eat cake and you’re going to get fit.’”
Sharon Eubanks, a former Department of Justice lawyer who led the government’s racketeering case against the tobacco industry, compared efforts by NAM to defend the fossil fuel industry’s inaction on climate change to efforts by trade groups to back the tobacco companies. She cited the Tobacco Institute and the Center for Tobacco Research, which provided faulty research and inaccurate testimony to support the tobacco industry’s lies about the harms of its product.
“I would say that this group is a little more in your face and direct than the tobacco industry was in what they are doing,” Eubanks said. “They tried to put on a fig leaf, the tobacco industry did, but NAM, there’s no fig leaf—it’s out there.”
NAM has attacked climate scientists, undermined international climate negotiations and worked to delay the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through the Global Climate Coalition, a fossil fuel front group that operated from 1989 to 2002. NAM and the Global Climate Coalition were so closely intertwined that one recently discovered document instructs members to make dues checks payable to “NAM – Global Climate Coalition.”
More recently, NAM launched its Manufacturers’ Accountability Project to defend big polluters against climate liability suits. Formed in 2017, the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project has attempted to discredit municipalities filing suits against oil companies for the damage they’ve caused to the climate.
Last year NAM launched the Main Street Investors Coalition to fend off shareholder resolutions calling for more transparency and action on climate change.
Why Do NAM’s Members Abide Its Backing of Fossil Fuel Companies?
NAM doesn’t publicly list its members, and companies with executives on NAM’s board include large fossil fuel companies with a clear interest in preventing climate liability suits.
At the same time, other board members come from a wide variety of companies, some which appear to have a strong commitment to protecting the climate and have little or no chance of being named in a climate liability suit, including Pella, Microsoft, Intel, Mueller WP, Volvo, Ball, Proctor and Gamble, Corning and Baker Boy, a North Dakota-based donut chain, among others.
Microsoft, which has recently come under fire for joining the Climate Leadership Council, an industry-backed group advocating for a carbon dividend plan that could do away with climate liability suits, has tried to back away from NAM’s work without leaving NAM.
Intel is also carefully distancing itself from NAM’s campaigns to delay action on climate change.
Intels positions don’t always align with NAM’s, said William Moss, an Intel spokesperson.
“In the case of climate change, we have raised it directly with NAM, and state in our climate change policy our support for the IPCC and the Paris Agreement, and our own commitment to reducing our carbon footprint,” said Moss, who added that the overall benefits of Intel’s membership in NAM outweigh its differences on issues like climate change.
“In areas where we may have significant differences, we often publish our position separately so our stakeholders know where we stand,” Moss said.
Proctor and Gamble said its NAM membership is aligned with its general business goals and strategies, but the company does not agree with NAM’s position on every issue.
“We also respect and value the views of our shareholders, especially on topics that are of importance to the company,” said a Proctor and Gamble spokesperson in a statement. “The trade associations of which we are members are aware of our policy positions, including our views on climate policies. We are consistent in the positions we share with external stakeholders as well as in our trade association engagement.”
NAM did not respond to a request for comment, but in a radio interview last year, its president, Jay Timmons, claimed NAM’s 250 board members are “unified in their concern about what lawsuits like this will do to manufacturing operations if they are successful,” Timmons said, referring to climate liability suits.
Guy Moos, president ofBaker Boy, said his company remains a member of NAM because of other membership benefits, not its stance on climate issues.
“In North Dakota, we’re probably wired a little differently because the Bakken oil field is a pretty big deal around here and so I personally don’t take a position of anti-fossil fuel,” Moos said.
Barnett said the more trade associations try to serve a narrow focus, the more difficult it is to retain a broad industry base.
After a recent review of its membership in several trade associations, Shell found it had “some misalignment” with NAM’s climate-related policy positions. While the oil giant announced it would not renew its membership in the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, it said it would “continue to engage with [NAM] and closely monitor our alignment on climate-related topics.”
Shell is facing climate liability suits in the U.S. for the damage its products have done to the climate and for failing to adequately plan for and protect its facilities from climate change. Seven environmental and human rights organizations in the Netherlands have filed suit against Shell for failing to align its business model with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Barnett said fossil fuel companies will continue to accrue liability as long as they deny responsibility for climate change.
==
in both API and Nat Petrol Cncl:
Rex Tillerson, John S Watson, Gary R Heminger,Ray L Hunt, Stephen I Chazen,James T Hackett, Al Walker, David J Lesar, Ralph A Hill, J Larry Nichols, G Steven Farris, Aubrey K**McClendon**, John T Gremp, Daniel Wayne Rabun, W Matt Ralls, David J O'Reilly,Marvin Odum, Frederic C Hamilton, Ryan Michael Lance, David Thomas Seaton, Martin S Craighead, Alan S Armstrong, Corbin Robertson, Doug Suttles, Robert L Parker Jr, David W Williams, Jack B Moore, Virginia B Lazenby, Timothy C Felt, Robert Douglas Lawler, Greg C Garland, Lee Tillman, Al Monaco
===
===
BP DEFECTS 2/20
12 pp
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/sustainability/our-participation-in-trade-associations-climate.pdf
Summary findings table – for further details see page 7
Not aligned Associations deemed not aligned are those which we found to have
stated opposition to BP positions with limited balancing support in
other areas.
Associations in this category are:
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
AFPM collaborated with its members over the past year to support
changes to its climate policy. While we are encouraged by this
progress, BP and AFPM’s views on carbon pricing are at odds and
currently we have no areas of full alignment. As a result, we have
decided to resign our membership.
Western Energy Alliance (WEA)
We have decided not to renew our membership with WEA due to
material differences around the federal regulation of methane and
due to BP’s divestment of assets in the states in which the
organization is active.
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
BP has decided to resign its membership in WSPA as a result of...
===
CIC links:
american Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
**American Fuels & Petrochemical Manufacturers**
America’s Natural Gas Alliance
National Association of Manufacturers
National Propane Gas Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
United States Chamber of Commerce
---
CIC’s Trade Associations PR Investigation in the Media
Posted: April 8, 2019
In early March 2019, the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) launched its Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry report, which revealed the almost $1.4 billion energy and business trade associations spent over the past decade on advertising, communications, and advocacy via contracts with public relations (PR) companies. Since the publication of the report, CIC’s Kert …
https://climateinvestigations.org/trade-associations-pr-investigation-media/
no lnx graphs
CIC’s Trade Associations PR Investigation in the Media
Climate Investigations Center on April 8, 2019
cic pr trade association report summarization photo
In early March 2019, the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) launched its Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry report, which revealed the almost $1.4 billion energy and business trade associations spent over the past decade on advertising, communications, and advocacy via contracts with public relations (PR) companies.
Since the publication of the report, CIC’s Kert Davies has been interviewed by online media outlets and podcasts discussing which PR firms were contracted, the various campaigns spawned from these connections, and the impacts these campaigns have on the public and lawmakers.
HuffPost
In a HuffPost article titled Big Business Spent $1.4 Billion On PR, Advertising Over The Last Decade, Chris D’Angelo wrote about CIC’s findings on trade associations and their public relations contracts. Additionally, D’Angelo interviewed Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Brown University who has tracked corporate spending and climate change denial groups. Regarding trade association PR contracts, Brulle says, “I don’t think you can understand the opposition to climate action unless you take this massive amount of activity into account.” Brulle called these PR campaigns the “sinews of the political operations and the cultural operations surrounding climate politics.”
Drilled Podcast
“In a lot of ways, PR firms have been sort of the linchpin of the fossil fuel industry’s plan for a long, long time.”
The true crime podcast, Drilled, hosted Davies on an episode titled, Big Oil Is Ramping Up PR Spending and Oil Production, which focused on the relationship between the fossil fuel industry and public relations firms. The episode covered both CIC’s trade association PR investigation as well as a report published by Influence Map.
Host Amy Westervelt described PR firms as being “the linchpin of the fossil fuel industry’s plan for a long, long time,” highlighting their extensive use by trade associations that represent the corporate interests of their membership. These trade associations allow member companies to push their political and anti-environmental agendas without a direct connection to their brand which might tarnish their reputation.
Westervelt highlighted trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the US Chamber of Commerce as some of the biggest offenders. During the interview, Davies explained that the visible PR campaigns are part of larger goals and targets that have been “agreed upon by the members of that trade association” and are a “window into their political game.” He notes that this tactic includes “very little overt climate denial” and instead is about “laying the groundwork for the campaigns that are against policies on climate change.” For instance, by “making fracking look good” people may begin to “question these policies like the Green New Deal,” Davies says.
Example of trade association advertising, this is API’s Vote4Energy campaign: “We can produce the energy America needs and protect the environment – it doesn’t have to be either/or. There’s already been a lot of progress.” Member companies of API include ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell.
The Real News Network
Kert Davies interviewed by Dharna Noor on the Real News Network, April 2019. View the video above to watch the full Real News Network segment on CIC’s trade associations and public relations spending report.
Davies was also recently interviewed on the Real News Network where he outlined the origins of CIC’s 2019 trade association PR investigation, showcased the report’s findings, and discussed the purpose of trade association campaigns.
As discussed on the show, the money spent on PR contracts by renewable energy associations and fossil fuel associations was a major finding of CIC’s investigation. Of the almost $1.4 billion spent by trade associations in the past decade, only $98.4 million of it (7%) was spent by renewable energy associations. In his interview, Davies elaborated, stating:
…it turns out that if you add all of [the renewable energy trade association PR contracts] up, including the ones that do biofuels and ethanol… they are a fraction of the total spending… API alone is six times the total spending of all the renewable energy associations combined.
API alone spent over six times more than the renewable energy trade associations we analyzed.
Davies also explains that this 2019 report was a continuation of a 2014 CIC investigation, which started with a survey to PR firms asking questions about their internal climate action plans, carbon tracking initiatives, and any client projects focused on climate change issues. As Davies explained, “Turns out, nobody had ever asked the PR companies these questions before, but we got some very interesting responses, including the biggest company, Edelman, who accidentally sent me an email saying ‘there are only wrong answers here, don’t respond.’”
Edelman PR email replying to Kert Davies, "There are no right answers for this guy."
Dharna Noor, host of the Real News Network segment, also highlighted Edelman’s connection to Koch Industries, “a key funder of climate change denial messaging.” As detailed in CIC’s investigation, Edelman was a frequent contractor to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, of which Koch Industries and its subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, is a member.
The Intercept
…companies are “using stories that appear to be part of a journalistic publication, but are actually paid for by advertisers in attempt to improve an image…”
In early April 2019, the Intercept published an article by Sharon Lerner titled, How the Media Launders Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Through Branded Content. The Intercept article warns against the rise of ”native advertising”, which is a form of advertising where an ad is written in article form and published on credible news sites to look like an article.
Lerner explains that fossil fuel and other companies are “using stories that appear to be part of a journalistic publication, but are actually paid for by advertisers in attempt to improve an image suffering in the coverage done by actual journalists.” Lerner cites CIC’s research, saying, “Industry trade groups spent almost $1.4 billion on PR, advertising and communications contractors over the past decade, according to the Climate Investigations Center, almost half of which came from the American Petroleum Institute.”
Click here to read CIC’s full Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry report
https://climateinvestigations.org/trade-association-pr-spending/
no lnx graphs
Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry
How much money have the corporate and fossil fuel industry’s powerful trade association allies spent to convince the American public that its products are beneficial and necessary – and to stymie progress on climate change that could harm its financial interests?
To find out, Climate Investigations Center researchers analyzed the public relations expenditures of these trade associations going back to 2008, using data from publicly-available federal Form 990 tax records. The expenditures provide unique insight into trade association priorities and the willingness of public relations firms to represent socially harmful industries.
The trade associations we analyzed spent almost $1.4 billion on contracts with public relations, advertising, and communications contractors since 2008.
Between 2008 and 2017, these trade associations spent almost $1.4 billion on public relations, advertising, and communications contractors. The American Petroleum Institute eclipses all spenders at $663 million over this time period, accounting for nearly half the total trackable spending from all trade associations. The US Chamber of Commerce ranked second at $244 million spent. We found that the public relations firms with the most lucrative contracts over the time period of our dataset were Edelman, DDC Advocacy, FleishmanHillard, and Blue Advertising (once part of Edelman).
Many of the trade associations we analyzed are fossil fuel associated but represent different sectors of the industry, such as oil, gas, coal, petrochemical, mining, and utility companies. Trade associations spend their revenue, from members’ dues, on salaries, rent, and services such as lobbying and legal counsel, to forward the goals of the industry they represent.
Trade associations routinely utilize the advertising andfront group — astroturf— services that public relations firms can provide. Top trade associations spend millions on public relations work each year, often targeting the Washington DC media market and political decision makers. Some prominent PR campaigns are launched nationwide, while others create front groups that will intentionally never bear the trade association’s name.
To view the spending by individual trade associations or to see a profile of the PR firms we analyzed,
click on the links below:
Trade Associations
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
American Fuels & Petrochemical Manufacturers
America’s Natural Gas Alliance
American Petroleum Institute
Edison Electric Institute
National Association of Manufacturers
National Mining Association
National Propane Gas Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Nuclear Energy Institute
United States Chamber of Commerce
Western Energy Alliance
Renewable Energy associations
Public Relations Firms
Edelman and Blue Advertising
Burson-Marsteller (Burson Cohn & Wolfe, as of 2018)
DCI Group
Democracy, Data & Communications Advocacy (DDC Advocacy)
FleishmanHillard
FTI Consulting
Hawthorn Group
Hill+Knowlton
Kivvit
Porter Novelli
Something Else Strategies
Our analysis also reveals that fossil fuel trade associations far exceed the PR and advertising spending of renewable energy trade associations. One fossil fuel industry trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, spent over six times more than four prominent renewable energy trade associations combined. In total, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Growth Energy, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) spent $98.4 million on PR and advertising during the 2008 to 2017 period. API alone dwarfs all four associations, spending a total of $663.2 million during the same time period.
API alone spent over six times more than the renewable energy trade associations we analyzed.
In addition to a comprehensive analysis of how industry utilizes these sizable contracts, CIC has made available all the IRS 990 tax forms used in this analysis, and produced interactive data visualizations and downloadable spreadsheets with the raw data.
In this report, the Climate Investigations Center has extended and updated the Center for Public Integrity’s groundbreaking 2015 report on public relations spending by trade associations. Spending data we have compiled since the CPI analysis confirms that public relations firms remain in a lucrative and influential partnership with big business and energy trade associations.
The Center for Public Integrity published “Who needs lobbyists? See what big business spends to win American minds,” which was the most thorough analysis of trade association spending to date in January 2015. The report compiled IRS 990 data from 2008 through 2012 to reveal that trade associations were often spending more on public relations firms than lobbyists. For some industries, advertising and front groups seemed to be the most powerful chosen means of achieving policy goals, putting public relations firms at the center of the policy debate over clean air, climate solutions, and good governance.
Download our data here (.csv file), or view in the table below:
Trade Association Contract Recipient Year Amount Paid
Western Energy Alliance Resonate Networks 2014 $175,000.00
Western Energy Alliance FTI Consulting 2017 $217,317.00
Western Energy Alliance Resonate Networks 2013 $200,000.00
Western Energy Alliance FTI Consulting 2018 $243,000.00
Western Energy Alliance Clear Channel 2013 $125,360.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Agency 2018 $4,834,422.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2018 $5,270,805.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2017 $1,150,000.00
United States Chamber of Commerce R Street Films 2018 $1,554,650.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Albright Stonebridge Group LLC 2017 $712,888.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2017 $2,919,990.00
United States Chamber of Commerce R Street Films 2016 $4,500,000.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2016 $9,204,150.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2016 $10,400,000.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Glass House Strategy 2016 $797,550.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Integrated Web Strategy 2015 $1,756,009.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2015 $1,734,327.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2014 $14,456,184.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2015 $1,200,000.00
United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2014 $7,050,000.00
many more pages]
Energy and Corporate Trade Associations Spend $1.4 Billion on PR Campaigns
Posted: March 14, 2019
How much money have the fossil fuel industry’s powerful trade association allies spent to convince the American public that its products are beneficial and necessary – and to stymie progress on climate change that could harm its financial interests? To find out, Climate Investigations Center researchers analyzed the public relations expenditures of these trade association
===
TRADE GROUPS KEY IN BEATING CLIMATE BILLS? EG LIEBERMAN-MARKEY 2008
Case Study: Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims
The Koch web is playing a role in promoting studies that exaggerate the costs of climate policy. In 2008, the Koch-web-funded American Council on Capital Formation (ACCF)teamed up with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to sponsor and disseminate a study of the economic impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. Every step of the way, Koch-funded anti-clean energy groups played a key role in moving the NAM/ACCF study in the media and at the grassroots level.
- ACCF funded and co-released the study withNAM.
- ACCF disseminated the results in presentations at over a dozen"Climate Dialogues" organized by the U.S. Chamber's Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG). ALSO API
- The AEEG "climate dialogues" involved other organizations funded through the Koch web, including:
- The Heritage Foundation which provided speakers for some events;
- Frontiers of Freedom staff and scholars participated in some of the dialogues.
ACCF and Coc funded BS NERA study that sank Paris via trump
===
===
AHA note // direct mail dark posts neg ads
ref
no lnx
Pharmaceutical industry likely to shatter its lobbying record as it works to shape Democrats’ spending bill
A years-long battle over prescription drug prices reaches its apex as the industry spends tens of millions to alter the plan.
By Yeganeh Torbati and Jonathan O'Connell
November 5, 2021
In September, Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) began noticing mailers arriving at homes across his district, including his own and that of his parents, with an alarming message. The mailers alleged that Kim was intent on preventing Medicare patients from getting the drugs they needed.
That was news to Kim, who has made lowering seniors’ health-care costs and expanding their access to Medicare a signature issue. The mailer, along with a slew of digital ads and text messages, was sponsored by a group called A Healthy Future, LLC, and claimed that Kim and other New Jersey Democrats wanted to cut off “access to lifesaving medicines” and shift Medicare money into other social safety-net programs.
Soon after the mailers landed in New Jersey mailboxes, Kim’s office began receiving calls from puzzled constituents.
“I’ve been attacked before, but I’ve never seen one as egregious as this one in terms of ‘Andy Kim’s trying to cut Medicare,’” Kim said. “That’s just so absurd, and I actually think that has affected how the district has responded.”
Watershed or watered down? Democrats’ drug pricing deal leaves many unsatisfied.
Kim was certain the attacks were coming from the pharmaceutical industry, but it was hard for him to be sure. A Healthy Future’s website includes no contact information, and a message to its Facebook page went unanswered. But a nonprofit group called A Public Voice listed A Healthy Futureas being under its control in its 2018 and 2019 tax filings and described the LLC’s primary activity as “supporting a vibrant health care system.”
:{:{}:
}:
A Healthy Future and its anonymous funders, it turned out, had fought previous efforts in Washington to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. According to Google digital ad data, A Healthy Future also paid for ads in fall 2020 arguing against a Trump administration attempt to address prescription drug costs.
Brian Newell, a spokesman for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry’s chief lobbying arm, when asked whether the organization had ever had any financial or other relationship with A Healthy Future or A Public Voice, said: “Like most industries and associations, PhRMA engages with groups and organizations that have a wide array of opinions and priorities, including those who do not want the government to come between patients and their medicines.” DENIAL NON-DENIAL ~ WATERGATE b&wOODWARD
The ads targeting Kim and others were one strand of a massive, months-long advertising, lobbying and political donation blitz undertaken by the pharmaceutical industry and its allies, perhaps the strongest of all corporate voices in Washington, to kill a Democratic proposal to lower the cost of prescription drugs by empowering the federal government to negotiate their prices.
That provision to control drug prices became a focal point of the $1.75 trillion spending package Democrats are trying to move through Washington. The measure was in, then out, then watered down, going through a fierce ping-pong of backroom negotiations that is likely to continue once the Senate considers the bill in coming weeks.
:{:{}:
}:
Pharmaceutical industry lobbyists defended their effort, alleging that the Democrats’ proposal would stifle research. They also said many other groups poured millions of dollars into the other side of the debate.
“As we’ve said repeatedly, our advocacy has focused on delivering solutions that will lower what patients pay out of pocket for prescription medicines, while opposing reforms that would ultimately leave patients trapped in a broken insurance system, restrict access to lifesaving medicines, and destroy the development of new treatments,” Newell said.
The influence campaign at times worked through groups whose funding sources are hidden. At least 20 different advertisements were run on television and online across the country. The advertisements were augmented by a campaign byPhRMA, which spent nearly $23 million on lobbying through the first nine months of 2021, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets, which tracks corporate spending and political influence. That puts PhRMA on track this year to beat its own spending recording of $29.3 million in 2019.
“The intensity right now of K Street and the deployment of lobbying and dark money is extraordinary,” said Nick Penniman, chief executive of Issue One, which advocates for transparency in Washington. “It is a frenzied state right now.”
The intense effort is reflective of just how much many companies have at stake in the Democrats’ evolving tax-and-spending bill. This article, which is based on interviews, documents and lobbying and ad spending data, offers a window into the efforts one sector took to shape the bill, much of which was crafted in secret.
The drug pricing provision agreed to by House Democrats this week does not go as far as many Democrats including Kim had hoped. But it still delivers reforms that could cut costs for millions of Americans bycapping out-of-pocket spending for seniors at $2,000 a year, capping insulin costs, preventing price increases that exceed the rate of inflation, and allowing Medicare to begin negotiating prices for some drugs.
“What we’re trying to do is defying one of the most powerful special-interest lobby groups in Washington, D.C.,” Kim said. “The fact that we were able to get something that will meaningfully help people was important.”
Other industries, including tobacco and electric vehicles, have worked aggressively to pare down or reshape parts of the bill in their favor, too. But the effort to fight back on drug-price increases stands out because of the enormous scope of the campaign waged by the pharmaceutical industry and its allies, which have derailed similar proposals for the past two decades, despite how popular many of the changes are with voters, according to polling data.
“They’re the Goliath,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of OpenSecrets. She said that aside from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, of which pharmaceutical firms are members, the industry had spent more than any other by a wide margin so far this year, deploying so many lobbyists — 1,600 — that they outnumber members of Congress 3 to 1.
:{:{}:
}:
The industry made $90.6 million of political contributions during the 2020 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets,61 percent of that to Democratic candidates and groups.
The industry’s focus on drug pricing has increased dramatically in recent years as the issue became more top-of-mind for voters. In 2012, lobbyists registered to work on the issue of “drug prices” 69 times for 20 different clients. In 2021 so far, they have filed to lobby on the issue 1,192 times for 242 different clients, according to OpenSecrets data.
While the industry lobbies on many different issues in a given year, the Democratic bill H.R. 3 that would have given the government more expansive power to negotiate drug prices was the bill PhRMA cited most often for lobbying; the bill appeared in its reports 35 times so far this year, OpenSecrets found.
Research by Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, which advocates for lower prices, found that PhRMA and its allies spent at least $26.5 million on television and digital ads attacking proposals on price negotiations between July and early November. That included $2.7 million spent by PhRMA, but also $4.5 million in ads by the 60 Plus Association, which bills itself as a conservative version of AARP anddid not respond to a request for comment.
Also lining up behind the effort was the American Action Network,a major conservative nonprofit advocacy group, with $7.9 million in ads. PhRMA gave the American Action Network $4.5 million in 2019, along with $75,000 to the 60 Plus Association, according to tax filings.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) holds one of Congress’s most competitive seats, having wrested it from Republican control in 2018 and narrowly winning reelection in 2020. She shaped her campaign around a platform of tackling rising health-care costs and has maintained focus on that issue, inviting a Type 1 diabetes patient with sky-high insulin costs to be her guest at the 2020 State of the Union address.
According to data tracked by Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, the American Action Network funded an ad in Slotkin’s district starting in August that accuses Democrats of pushing a “socialisthealth-care plan to control what medicines you can get.”
:{:{}:
}:
Her office is now accustomed to fielding calls from constituents who see ads like that one on television, Slotkin said.
“We can really tell the first couple of days those ads run because that’s when we’ll see a spike in the number of people calling our office,” she said. “We literally write a response that our staff can use to forcefully push back and try to contradict the purposeful misinformation.”
Asked about the accuracy of the advertisement targeting Slotkin, American Action Network spokesman Calvin Moore reiterated its message, saying such proposals amount to “socialist price controls” that could limit development of new prescription drugs. “Stifling innovation to this degree has profound consequences,” Moore said.
Many of the backers of these efforts are difficult to identify because of rules allowing anonymous funding of political groups. A Public Voice, which described itself on its 2018 and 2019 tax forms as the “direct controlling entity” of A Healthy Future, is based in Thornville, Ohio.It listed nearly $5 million in contributions in 2018, though it declined to name its donors, and spent the money on consulting, marketing and funding conservative causes across the country. That year, its donations included $240,000 to Fund for a Working Congress, a political action committee that supported Republican candidates, and $370,000 to Ohio First PAC, which supported a challenge by Republican James B. Renacci against Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
A voice mail left at a number listed on tax filings for A Public Voice received no response. Documents filed with the state of Ohio show that the entity originally formed in 2012 as Protect Your Vote Ohio and show its registered agents as lawyers with Langdon Law, a Cincinnati-area law firm known as a nexus for “dark money” groups on the right.
David Langdon of Langdon Law did not respond to an email and voice mail requesting comment.
The approximately 20 digital and television video ads compiled by Patients for Affordable Drugs Now and reviewed by The Washington Post warned viewers about an array of crises that could befall them should Congress allow Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs, among them that the industry could no longer develop new medications, that the government would limit access to prescriptions, that Medicare would be cut or that millions of jobs would be lost.
:{:{}:
}:
“They call it negotiation, but it really means government decides what medicines I can get,” says “Sue,” awoman labeled in one ad as a diabetic from Ohio.
:{:{}:
}:
“Imagine a future in which a vaccine for covid-19 was never discovered,” says a voice in another spot.
Pro-industry advertising ran during opinion shows on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, as well as during college football games, according to the advertising data firm iSpot.tv.
Once the drug cost proposal was added to President Biden’s larger legislative package, some advertising took direct aim at Democrats’ spending priorities. One claimed the proposal called for “gutting Medicare” in exchange for “pie-in-the-sky special-interest kickbacks.” It depicts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) riding atop an animated unicorn, she and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) sliding down rainbows, and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) at a dessert buffet. Another depicts the proposal as a shell game that “loots Medicare.”
Jayapal says Democrats almost have the votes to pass Build Back Better
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) described her frustration with lengthy negotiations on the Build Back Better act in an interview with The Washington Post Nov. 5. (Zach Purser Brown/The Washington Post)
Previous presidents, including Barack Obama and Donald Trump, vowed to pass bills to lower prescription drug costs, only to see their efforts die on Capitol Hill, in part because of a relentless lobbying blitz.
When Montana’s Brian Schweitzer ran for Senate in 1999, he elevated his long-shot campaign by busing senior citizens to Canada so they could illegally buy drugs at lower prices.
:{:{}:
}:
He got his first taste of the pharmaceutical lobby shortly afterward, when he said television ads started attacking him for trusting medicines made in other countries. He said in his case, the attacks helped make his political career. “Virtually everybody in America has a friend or family member who is taking that expensive medicine,” he said.
:{:{}:
}:
Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) holds anothercompetitive seat, representing an Allentown, Pa., district that narrowly favored Biden in the 2020 election. She said that as she began supporting drug price reform early in her career, lobbyists began relentlessly calling her office, even though she had vowed not to take corporate PAC donations.
:{:{}:
}:
“If they’re calling me nonstop, imagine what they’re doing to those who actually do take their money,” she said.
During the most recent negotiations, Wild began receiving automated emails from constituentsworried they wouldn’t be able to get their medicines if the government could negotiate prices. But on Sunday she joined 14 colleagues from other competitive districts, including Kim and Slotkin, to urge Democratic leadership to deliver on their promise to reduce drug prices.
She said she knows what comes next.
“I am quite certain that because I have been so outspoken on this issue, that I am going to face an attack ad,” Wild said. “I have an idea for what it could be, but I don’t want to tell you in case they see it. I don’t want to give them any ideas.”
---
===
oreskes:
A third way the industry has promoted disinformation is through their trade associations. In the
early 1990s, the Western Fuels Association ran a media campaign across the country designed to
undermine public support for climate action by promoting the message that it would be wasteful to
spend money solving a problem that perhaps did not actually exist (Appendix 16). These trade
associations include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the American Petroleum
Institute (API), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Black Chamber of Commerce
(NBCC), and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
===
oops 2x
no lnx
British Petroleum (BP) is working to clean up its climate image. In the two months since environmental law nonprofit Client Earth filed a complaint against the UK oil giant with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) alleging its ads were misleading, BP has announced intentions to reach “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050, stop all “corporate reputation” advertising and, now, withdraw from trade associations with approaches on climate that are out of step with its values.
The company announced this week it will resign its membership in the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and will not renew its membership with the Western Energy Alliance (WEA).
The decision came after BP conducted a review comparing the climate-related policies of several trade associations to its own. The company found its policies are not aligned with those of the AFPM, WSPA and WEA.
BP cited WEA’s opposition of federal methane regulation as a main area of misalignment. BP said “recent and developing differences in the area of carbon pricing” have contributed to its decision to leave the WSPA, as has its current focus on stopping a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) initiative in Washington state. But while proclaiming to support a tax on carbon, BP contributed nearly $13 million to a campaign by the WSPA to help defeat a Washington state carbon emissions fee initiative in 2018.
BP listed disagreements over carbon pricing as the main reason for leaving the AFPM.
However, BP will remain a member of the American Petroleum Institute (AP), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), despite finding that its policies are only partially aligned with those groups. According to its review, BP disagrees with the API’s opposition to the federal regulation of methane, disagrees with NAM over its opposition to carbon pricing and differs from the Chamber’s approach to climate science and emissions reduction efforts.
Yet for now, BP will remain a member of these groups, despite the fact that the API, U.S. Chamber and NAM are well-known architects of climate science denial.
“A company like BP that engages with trade associations is doing a constant cost-benefit calculation--to what extent does this group represent BP's interest and its policy advocacy versus pose a reputational risk for the company with its own investors, and with the public," said Kathryn Mulvey, climate accountability campaign manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Clearly the fact that the company is staying with the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers, despite finding only partial alignment indicates that there's a calculation being made on its part.”
BP is not the first oil major to call it quits with the AFPM. Shell withdrew its membership last year in response to pressure from investors. It continued its membership with the WSPA despite finding “some misalignment” between its own policies and those of the WSPA. Shell appears to have discontinued its WEA membership in 2016.
AFPM president and chief executive officer Chet Thompson said the association is disappointed.
"As a member of our executive committee they know that AFPM is and has been committed to supporting policies that address climate change. Because of that, it leads us to assume that this decision was made based on factors other than our actual positions on the issues,” Thompson said in a statement without specifying what those factors are.
The split could ratchet up the pressure on ExxonMobil and Chevron, along with other oil companies to examine their trade association membership, Mulvey said.
"We would expect it would make it a good deal harder for major oil and gas companies to hide behind third-party lobby groups,” she said. “We're starting to see a real new norm in terms of transparency, regarding climate policy positions and also action to address misalignment and inconsistency of trade group positions with stated company positions.”
BP said it will conduct its next review in two years and plans to provide periodic, internal updates to its board of directors and stakeholders. It did not rule out potentially withdrawing from more trade associations in the future.
“BP will pursue opportunities to work with organizations who share our ambitious and progressive approach to the energy transition. And when differences arise we will be transparent. But if our views cannot be reconciled, we will be prepared to part company,” said BP chief executive officer Bernard Looney in a statement, adding that the industry has long demonstrated it can collaborate effectively through trade associations.
“My hope is that in the coming years we can add climate to the long list of areas where, as an industry, we work together for a greater good,” Looney added.
Catherine Rheis-Boyd, president of the WSPA resident said her group and its members will continue to talk with BP and other stakeholders regarding the creation of a sustainable energy future.
“Our members know the way the world produces, distributes and consumes energy is evolving, and our industry will remain leaders in investing in and developing the diverse energy sources and technologies we need for the future,” Reheis-Boyd said. “Working together as an industry, we will rise to the challenge of a changing climate.”
The WEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mulvey said while BP is clearly concerned about its reputation and has pledged to be at net zero, whether the company will take the necessary steps remains to be seen. The company has so far only mentioned carbon capture technology and carbon offsets as methods to achieving net zero, promising to provide more details in September, nine months after its announcement.
Meanwhile, the company has pulled its “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign (the source of the Client Earth OECD complaint), but has been advertising its net zero commitment quite a bit on social media and in search engines.
BP’s withdrawal from the three associations does make one thing clear, Mulvey said.
"It lays down a gauntlet for ExxonMobil and Chevron to really step up or they may be understood, by the investor community in particular, to be falling behind their competitors."
BP Calls It Quits with 3 Trade Associations, but Continues Membership in NAM, API, US Chamber
==
===
secret sci
==
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/11/14/new-paper-reveals-rail-industry-was-leader-climate-denial-efforts
many lnx guk
pix
New Paper Reveals Rail Industry Was Leader in Climate Denial Efforts
By Justin Mikulka • Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 07:58
A recent paper analyzing the major players in the organized efforts to attack climate change science and delay action had a surprising revelation — the biggest contributing industry/sector was not oil and gas but rail/steel/coal with the most active organization in the climate denial movement being the Association of American Railroads (AAR).
In the paper, Networks of Opposition: A Structural Analysis of U.S. Climate Change Countermovement Coalitions 1989-2015, author Robert Brulle, looks at “key political coalitions that worked to oppose climate action. In conjunction with their allied trade associations, these coalitions have served as a central coordination mechanism in efforts opposed to mandatory limits on carbon emissions.”
And the allied trade association that was most active was the AAR. Why would the rail industry care about climate change and be active in promoting denial? Coal.
Coal has historically been the biggest business for U.S. rail, and still generates over 16% of Class 1 rail revenue in 2018, according to the AAR. Without coal the U.S. rail industry has a major revenue problem — which explains the decades of climate denial activity documented in this new paper.
Of course, the U.S. coal industry is in serious decline despite all of the climate denialism funded by the rail and coal industries. Moody’s has estimated that the rail industry is facing a loss of $5 billion in coal revenues (from current levels of approximately $10 billion) by 2030.
That reality hasn’t stopped the AAR from continuing to push coal while not acknowledging climate change. In a May 2019 publication on rail and coal, the AAR fails to mention climate change while also touting debunked ideas like “clean coal” as potential lifelines for the dying coal industry.
AAR and History of Science Denial
In my book, Bomb Trains: How Industry Greed and Regulatory Failure Put the Public at Risk, I document how the AAR has a history of adopting the climate change denial model of attacking known science to delay, deny and repeal safety regulations. This is the model that worked well for the tobacco industry and continues to be an effective method for lobbyists like the AAR to work with members of Congress and regulators to prioritize corporate profits over public safety.
Much like how Exxon knew the science of climate change long before it started spending big money to mislead the public about that reality, the rail industry and the AAR have done the same with safety measures like modern electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes.
As I have documented for DeSmog, the rail industry and the AAR and regulators at the Federal Railroad Administration all have agreed that, based on the research, ECP brakes are far superior to the current brakes used on oil trains.
Until new regulations were proposed to require those brakes on oil trains in the future. Then the AAR and industry just changed the story and said there was no science supporting the safety benefits of ECP brakes — after years of being on record saying the opposite. In one case lobbyists for the AAR were in Washington, D.C. lobbying against modern brakes while a derailed oil train was still burning in Illinois.
The AAR even ran ads on Google attacking the facts of ECP brakes.
Image: Screen capture of Google ad from American Association of Railroads.]
The industry has taken a similar approach to denying the science of the impacts of sloshing on train derailments and ignoring the risks of trains that are too heavy and too long.
And perhaps the most egregious example is the rail industry working with the American Petroleum Institute to deny the known science of oil that is the reason oil trains are known as bomb trains. The oil industry claims it doesn’t understand the science of oil — one of the great science denial claims of all time — and as with all such claims it is about putting profits over safety. The rail industry learned this lesson well.
Climate Change Will Wreak Havoc With Rail
While the rail industry has worked to protect its financial interests by supporting climate denial efforts, it also is an industry that is facing huge climate related challenges — well beyond just the loss of its coal business.
In March, the journal Transport Policy published the paper Impacts of Climate change on Operation of US Rail Networks that estimated the costs of temperature increases due to climate change could reach $45 to $60 billion by 2100.
Temperatures extremes — both hot and cold — cause big problems for railroads because metal rails don’t react well to extreme temperatures. The industry has known for years about “sun kinks” which is the term for when metal rails buckle in extreme heat which can cause train derailments.
In July, Mashable featured the issue of heat and railroads and the outlook wasn’t good.
“This is not a problem that’s going away,” Paul Chinowsky, a civil engineer at the University of Colorado Boulder and author of the Transport Policy paper, told Mashable. Chinowsky also noted that rail companies are already stopping traffic during the hottest times of the day in places like Virginia and Arizona. And the article notes the many problems for rail caused by the record heat wave in Europe this summer.
Just this week, Alex Hynes, the managing director of Scotland’s railway, admitted the reality of rail and climate change when he stated that, “The railway in this country can no longer cope because of climate change.”
Flooding on the Tracks...
===
api knew? evil
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042020/science-denial-coronavirus-covid-climate-change
American science denialism, deployed for years against climate change and, most recently, the coronavirus, can be traced back to the early 1950s during the fight over smog in Los Angeles.
When a Cal-Tech biochemist fingered nitrogen oxide emissions and uncombusted hydrocarbons from automobiles and refineries as the cause of the thick smog that often blanketed the city, theAmerican Petroleum Institutecounter-attacked by highlighting the alleged uncertainty of his science.The tactic was a test run for the fossil fuel industry's assault 40 years later on climate science.
Decades of climate denial now appear to have paved the way for denial of Covid-19 by many on the right, according to experts on climate politics. After the fossil fuel industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars attacking climate scientists and accentuating the supposed uncertainty of climate science, it isn't hard to understand how that happened.
President Trump, who denies climate change, has brushed off Covid-19's seriousness until recently by relying on many of the same arguments he uses to dismiss global warming, such as ignoring government scientists or blaming China. ...
==
==
no lnx
British Petroleum (BP) is working to clean up its climate image. In the two months since environmental law nonprofit Client Earth filed a complaint against the UK oil giant with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) alleging its ads were misleading, BP has announced intentions to reach “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050, stop all “corporate reputation” advertising and, now, withdraw from trade associations with approaches on climate that are out of step with its values.
The company announced this week it will resign its membership in the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and will not renew its membership with the Western Energy Alliance (WEA).
The decision came after BP conducted a review comparing the climate-related policies of several trade associations to its own. The company found its policies are not aligned with those of the AFPM, WSPA and WEA.
BP cited WEA’s opposition of federal methane regulation as a main area of misalignment. BP said “recent and developing differences in the area of carbon pricing” have contributed to its decision to leave the WSPA, as has its current focus on stopping a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) initiative in Washington state. But while proclaiming to support a tax on carbon, BP contributed nearly $13 million to a campaign by the WSPA to help defeat a Washington state carbon emissions fee initiative in 2018.
BP listed disagreements over carbon pricing as the main reason for leaving the AFPM.
However, BP will remain a member of the American Petroleum Institute (AP), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), despite finding that its policies are only partially aligned with those groups. According to its review, BP disagrees with the API’s opposition to the federal regulation of methane, disagrees with NAM over its opposition to carbon pricing and differs from the Chamber’s approach to climate science and emissions reduction efforts.
Yet for now, BP will remain a member of these groups, despite the fact that the API, U.S. Chamber and NAM are well-known architects of climate science denial.
“A company like BP that engages with trade associations is doing a constant cost-benefit calculation--to what extent does this group represent BP's interest and its policy advocacy versus pose a reputational risk for the company with its own investors, and with the public," said Kathryn Mulvey, climate accountability campaign manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Clearly the fact that the company is staying with the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers, despite finding only partial alignment indicates that there's a calculation being made on its part.”
BP is not the first oil major to call it quits with the AFPM. Shell withdrew its membership last year in response to pressure from investors. It continued its membership with the WSPA despite finding “some misalignment” between its own policies and those of the WSPA. Shell appears to have discontinued its WEA membership in 2016.
AFPM president and chief executive officer Chet Thompson said the association is disappointed.
"As a member of our executive committee they know that AFPM is and has been committed to supporting policies that address climate change. Because of that, it leads us to assume that this decision was made based on factors other than our actual positions on the issues,” Thompson said in a statement without specifying what those factors are.
The split could ratchet up the pressure on ExxonMobil and Chevron, along with other oil companies to examine their trade association membership, Mulvey said.
"We would expect it would make it a good deal harder for major oil and gas companies to hide behind third-party lobby groups,” she said. “We're starting to see a real new norm in terms of transparency, regarding climate policy positions and also action to address misalignment and inconsistency of trade group positions with stated company positions.”
BP said it will conduct its next review in two years and plans to provide periodic, internal updates to its board of directors and stakeholders. It did not rule out potentially withdrawing from more trade associations in the future.
“BP will pursue opportunities to work with organizations who share our ambitious and progressive approach to the energy transition. And when differences arise we will be transparent. But if our views cannot be reconciled, we will be prepared to part company,” said BP chief executive officer Bernard Looney in a statement, adding that the industry has long demonstrated it can collaborate effectively through trade associations.
“My hope is that in the coming years we can add climate to the long list of areas where, as an industry, we work together for a greater good,” Looney added.
Catherine Rheis-Boyd, president of the WSPA resident said her group and its members will continue to talk with BP and other stakeholders regarding the creation of a sustainable energy future.
“Our members know the way the world produces, distributes and consumes energy is evolving, and our industry will remain leaders in investing in and developing the diverse energy sources and technologies we need for the future,” Reheis-Boyd said. “Working together as an industry, we will rise to the challenge of a changing climate.”
The WEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mulvey said while BP is clearly concerned about its reputation and has pledged to be at net zero, whether the company will take the necessary steps remains to be seen. The company has so far only mentioned carbon capture technology and carbon offsets as methods to achieving net zero, promising to provide more details in September, nine months after its announcement.
Meanwhile, the company has pulled its “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign (the source of the Client Earth OECD complaint), but has been advertising its net zero commitment quite a bit on social media and in search engines.
BP’s withdrawal from the three associations does make one thing clear, Mulvey said.
"It lays down a gauntlet for ExxonMobil and Chevron to really step up or they may be understood, by the investor community in particular, to be falling behind their competitors."
BP Calls It Quits with 3 Trade Associations, but Continues Membership in NAM, API, US Chamber
==
API KNEW
Leaders of the U.S. fossil fuel industry knew as early as 1954 that carbon dioxide pollution accumulating in the atmosphere posed a growing threat to life on Earth, but failed to warn the public. That’s according to new research published by Stanford historian Benjamin Franta in the journal Nature Climate Change. Franta found that in the 1950s the American Petroleum Institute commissioned a study by a Caltech scientist which concluded global CO2 levels had risen by 5 percent in a century. It’s the earliest known industry-funded research into climate change, and the findingsled in part to a 1965 report by President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee on the threat posed by global warming.Speaking to members of an oil industry conference that year, Frank Ikard, then-president of the American Petroleum Institute, warned, “This report unquestionably will fan emotions, raise fears, and bring demand for action. The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out.” The American Petroleum Institute would instead go on to fund decades of climate change denial while fighting efforts to switch to renewable energy sources.
==
===
https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/holy-relics-and-celebrity-mementos-put-heaven-within-reach/
US lobby groups representing the fossil fuel and automotive industries are world leaders when it comes to stalling government action on climate change, new research shows.
Of the top 10 trade associations considered to be the most effective at opposing climate-friendly policies globally, seven are based in Washington DC, according to a report published this week by lobbying watchdog InfluenceMap.
Many of the organisations, which include the American Petroleum Institute and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, have had their wishes granted since President Trump’s election. As part of a broader deregulatory agenda, the Trump administration has scrapped regulations on methane emissions and automotive fuel efficiency standards.
Analysis by the NYU School of Law’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center suggests these regulatory rollbacks will add an estimated 200 million tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions annually by 2025.
The report coincides with a UN Climate Action Summit taking place in New York this week, which aims to strengthen countries’ emissions reduction plans, with an overall goal of “net zero” by 2050.
Fighting climate action
The lobby groups highlighted in the report have been working to undermine efforts to introduce climate policies since long before Trump’s election, however.
The National Association of Manufacturers, which tops the list, coordinated the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, which tried to influence the UN’s IPCC process and spread doubt about climate science during the 1990s.
In 2009, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers funded rallies against the proposed Clean Energy Act which would have established a “cap-and-trade” emissions scheme across the country.
The National Mining Association currently runs an astroturf campaign called ‘Count on Coal’, while the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a recipient of Koch and ExxonMobil funding, has developed numerous “model bills” for states to adopt over the years. They include opposition to renewable energy targets and support for the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
Three trade associations from other countries feature in the top 10: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Japan Business Federation. BusinessEurope, a coalition of trade federations that has opposed the EU increasing its action on climate change, sits at number 12.
InfluenceMap argues that while the groups have so far managed to avoid significant public scrutiny, they are being “increasingly challenged by investors, the media and politicians that recognise the role they play in holding back effective action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.”
Beau O’Sullivan, Communications Manager at theshareholder activism charity ShareAction, said the findings reinforce growing calls for companies to sever ties with organisations working to kill off strong climate policies:
“This report rightly quantifies the insidious nature of the anti-climate lobby powerhouse. Investors are indeed alert to this and are taking action.”
“Most recently, investors have filed an ambitious shareholder resolution at mining company BHP to ask it to cut ties with the worst offenders in obstructive lobbying, namely the Minerals Council of Australia, Business Council of Australia, and US chamber of commerce. Voting for this proposal will be a real test of investor action.”
Ed Collins, Project Lead on Climate Lobbying at InfluenceMap, told DeSmog the trade associations were also “facing increasing pressure from more progressive parts of their membership”.
“We are at a crucial time for climate action. But against a backdrop of huge public concern around climate change and increasingly dire warnings from scientists, these trade groups continue to frustrate progress on climate policy, especially in the US, which should be leading the world in terms of climate ambition,” he said.
---
Light bulb manufacturers score victory with new Trump energy rule
The Department of Energy finalized a rule Wednesday that will prevent Obama-era efficiency standards for light bulbs from being implemented. The decision was cheered by lighting manufacturers that have spent the last two years lobbying Congress and the DOE to reverse new energy efficiency standards that would have affected billions of light bulbs sold in the U.S. Read more
:{:{:{}:
}:}:
The Department of Energy finalized a rule Wednesdaythat will prevent Obama-era efficiency standards for commonly used light bulbs from being implemented.
The decision was cheered by lighting manufacturers that have spent the last two years lobbying Congress and the DOE to reverse new energy efficiency standards that would have affected billions of light bulbs sold in the U.S. The stricter standards were set to go into effect in January 2020.
Environmental groups, on the other hand, expressed disappointment and argued the decision would worsen the climate by enabling the sale of inefficient bulbs that contribute to carbon dioxide emissions.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association applauded the Trump administration’s new rules in a statement Wednesday, arguing the Obama-era efficiency standards were not feasible for manufacturers producing certain kinds of lamps. It said the rule change “will not impact the market’s continuing, rapid adoption of energy-saving lighting in the next few years.”
Thetrade group, which represents major lighting manufacturers such as General Electric and Acuity Brands, fiercely fought new DOE efficiency standards when they were finalized on President Barack Obama’s final full day in office. It spent $5 million on lobbying since the start of 2017 and dispatched dozens of revolving door lobbyists.
The Trump administration cited statistics from lighting trade groups in its final rule, noting that the Obama-era regulations would place costs on retailers that have to replace their outdated bulbs. DOE argued in its new rule that the new efficiency standards were not consistent with a 2007 law that requires the agency to phase out inefficient bulbs by 2020.
The environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, which spent $2.4 million on lobbying since 2017, disagreed. The group said in a press release it will “explore all options, including litigation, to defend these critically important lighting efficiency standards.”
The new DOE rule is a win for light bulb manufacturers. But the lighting trade group, along with prominent air conditioning and appliance manufacturers, are urging Congress to take the next step and amend the 1975 law that requires DOE to periodically craft new efficiency standards.
The American Lighting Association, a lighting industry trade association that does not deploy registered lobbyists, flew its members to Washington in May to push for changes to “modernize” the 43-year-old Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The group said it had lunch with Daniel Simmons, who oversees the DOE’s energy efficiency programs. Simmons previously worked for the conservative Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit that fights renewable energy efforts.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers has called on lawmakers to change the act by excluding some products that already operate at high efficiency and to require DOE to consider the impact of new regulations. Representing industry giants such as LG Electronics and GE Appliances, the trade group is on pace to break its own lobbying spending record in 2019, shelling out $675,000 through the first half of the year.
“More stringent federal efficiency standards are likely to increase costs for manufacturers and consumers without providing meaningful energy savings,” the group said in a press release.
The Air Conditioning Heating, & Refrigeration Institute shelled out a record $1 million in cold hard cash last year and another $552,000 through the first half of 2019. It reported dispatching lobbyists to DOE to lobby for “needed reforms” to the law to “improve the regulatory process and accountability.”
In February, DOE proposed changes to slow down the rulemaking process for setting new efficiency standards. That move was criticized by environmental groups but drew support from appliance and lightbulb manufacturers and other affected trade groups.
==
===
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/09/12/report-90-percent-world-s-largest-200-industrial-companies-are-using-trade-associations-oppose-climate-policy
Nearly all of the world’s largest 200 industrial companies have directly or indirectly opposed climate policy since the landmark Paris Agreement was signed three years ago, according to new research.
Analysis by InfluenceMap, a UK-based think tank, examined the lobbying activities of 200 of the world’s biggest companies and 75 of the most powerful trade groups and the links between them since December 2015.
It found that 30 percent of all companies analysed have directly lobbied against climate policy in the last three years and that 90 percent of them retain membership to trade associations which have actively opposed climate policy around the world.
While the findings have come as no surprise to campaigners calling out corporate lobbying on climate policy, the research highlights the key role trade associations continue to play in influencing policy-makers and watering down climate policy.
Edward Collins, project manager at InfluenceMap, told DeSmog UK that trade associations are doing the “dirty work” and lobby for much stronger positions than their members support in public.
“A lot of the worst lobbying activities are being increasingly outsourced to trade groups as companies are more weary to take it on themselves to directly lobby government and put their names to it,” he said.
Ranking corporate spin
InfluenceMap used a scoring system to rank companies and trade associations according to how well their actions align with the Paris Agreement target of limiting temperature rise “well below two degrees” above pre-industrial levels.
The analysis selected the top 200 companies of the 2018 Forbes Global 2000, a list of all publicly-traded companies from 60 countries which this year collectively accounted for a market value of $56.8 trillion.
Financial companies and state-owned enterprises listed on Forbes Global 2000 were yet excluded from InfluenceMap’s analysis.
The think tank ranked companies from A to F as an indicator of how ready they are for a global low-carbon policy — taking into account their membership to trade associations.
Among the 25 most influential companies of the list, Ikea, Apple, Unilever and SSE ranked the highest and scored A on their positive engagement with climate policy.
At the bottom of the table, the worst performing companies include a host of fossil fuel firms such as the Koch Industries, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil and BP.
The case of BP and Shell
In the UK, InfluenceMap found SSE and The National Grid to be leading the way in terms of positive engagement with climate policy. But Shell and BP ranked a D and an E+ respectively for obstructing climate policy through covert lobbying means while publicly supporting climate action.
The report argues that BP appears to have “a negative and conflicting approach to climate regulation”.
It says that while BP has shown evidence of support for action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the UN climate negotiation process, the company “ultimately does not appear to be aligned with a transition to a low-carbon future and has stressed concerns against the case for ambitious emission reductions”.
The report cites examples from 2015 when BP CEO Bob Dudley publicly supported a carbon tax and energy efficiency regulation and chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg used his opening speech to investors at the company’s AGM to talk about energy transition and BP’s support for renewable energy subsidies.
Yet, the same year, aGuardian investigation YYY revealed that BP lobbied to undermine EU renewable energy targets and subsidies in favour of gas.
In 2016, another Guardian investigation found that the EU dropped policy to cut pollution and speed-up clean energy uptake after receiving a letter from a top BP executive warning of an industry “exodus” from Europe if the proposals went ahead.
BP is also a member of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association(APPEA), FuelsEurope and the National Association of Manufacturing, trade groups which have consistently opposed ambitious climate change policy in Australia, Europe, and the US.
BP did not respond to DeSmog UK’s request for comment in time for publication.
---
The report found that Shell had “mixed and sometimes conflicting engagement with climate change policy”.
It argued that while Shell accepts climate change science and has shown support for the Paris Agreement, public statements from the company’s leadership have “repetitively suggested that action on climate change should be balanced against the economic feasibility of emission reduction”.
The report also found that while Shell said it embraced a low-carbon transition, CEO Ben Van Beurden previously said gas will bean indefinite part of the energy mix and that the company repeatedly said that a large-scale dependence on fossil fuels will be necessary “for decades to come”.
Shell is also a member of a number of trade associations obstructing climate action including BusinessEurope, FuelsEurope, Western States Petroleum Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, The American Petroleum Institute, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and APPEA.
Pascoe Sabido, from Corporate Europe Observatory, warned that fossil fuel companies’ “sleek PR” was a “dangerous distraction” from the level of climate action needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goals.
He added that narratives which put gas at the heart of a “clean energy strategy” would allow fossil fuel companies to continue business as usual and should not go unchallenged.
A Shell spokeswoman said climate change is “an immense societal challenge that Shell has long recognised and where we are committed to playing a constructive role, moving in step with society towards a lower carbon future”. She added that society faced a dual challenge of “meeting growing demand for energy, while at the same time transitioning to a lower carbon world”.
She said that Shell belonged to many trade organisations “for a variety of reasons” including “workforce issues, technology innovation or economic development” and that the company did not always agree with the views of these organisations on every issue. “Where this is the case, we look at the totality of the organisation not a single issue,” she said.
Trade Associations: Powerful lobbying vehicles
Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Collins, of Influence Map, said the roll back of Obama-era climate and environmental policies in the US did have an impact on the report’s findings but thatlobbying continued to be rife in Europe.
“In Europe, lobbyists tend to be more focused on the small print and the technical details of legislation debated in the corridors of the European Commission. This is how a lot of legislation gets watered down without the public understanding what is happening,” he said.
Sabido, from Corporate Europe Observatory, described the work of these trade groups as “lobbying vehicles” engaged in a “race to the bottom”.
He said companies sometimes had to accept other members’ strong lobbying demands if they wanted the trade group to address their own concerns and issues.
“We have to be clear that trade associations are a convenient front for companies, which can pursue their own branding strategies while the trading associations do the dirty work,” he said.
Sabido added that the “symbiotic relationship” between fossil fuel companies and governments across Europe had to end in order for policy-makers to decide on ambition climate policy without interference from fossil fuel lobbyists.
Climate risk and shareholders’ interest
In recent years, the financial sector has ramped up its warning that failing to tackle climate change could disrupt financial stability and the economy.
Earlier this year, Bank of England governor Mark Carney said climate change could have a “catastrophic impact” on the financial system and that companies had to acknowledge and disclose climate-related risks to their business.
Commenting on InfluenceMap’s findings, Tom Burke, chairman of the environment policy think tank E3G, told DeSmog UK that “it was not rare for businesses to speak out of both sides of their mouth” but warned that failing to positively engage with climate policy was not in the interest of these companies’ shareholders.
“If climate policy succeeds, it will be tough on the fossil fuel industry who will be out of business. But they represent about 10 percent of the market.
“If climate policy fails, the remaining 90 percent of the market will have its interest damaged. The fossil fuel industry is effectively eating the lunch of the rest of the financial sector,” he said.
===
==
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/these-corporations-have-biggest-influence-climate-policy
For better or worse, corporations have a major influence on climate change policy. Just look at Koch Industries, a multinational conglomerate owned by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch that has contributed hundreds of millions to federal candidates and lobbying over the last 25 years.
The "Corporate Carbon Policy Footprint," a new analysis from U.K. nonprofit InfluenceMap, now ranks Koch Industries as the company with the strongest opposition to the Paris climate agreement and most intensely lobbies against policies in line with the landmark global accord.
The InfluenceMap scoring system does not measure a company's actual greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, it measures "the extent to which a corporation is supporting or obstructing the climate policy process."
For the InfluenceMap report, researchers analyzed more than "30,000 pieces of evidence" on 250 global companies and 50 major trade associations on their lobbying records, advertising, public relations and sponsored research, according to Bloomberg.
The research group gave the Wichita-based company an "F" grade for its anti-climate actions:
"Koch Industries appears to be actively opposing almost all areas of climate legislation. In 2014 in the US, they were reportedly active in their opposition to a carbon tax, funding politicians and campaigns to oppose the tax. Similarly, in 2014 they appear to have opposed the U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan in consultation and through direct engagement with policy makers, and boasted about their success in blocking the US Cap and Trade Scheme in 2010. Additionally, they appear to be opposing measures to transition to a low carbon economy, advocating against renewable energy subsidies, and funding groups that have opposed energy efficiency standards, the repeal of fossil fuel subsidies and the need for action on climate change. They seem to be exceptionally active in opposing renewable energy standards across the U.S. Both the organization and its CEO, Charles Koch, appear to have questioned climate change science, and have reportedly funded climate denial. Senior executives are active in both the National Association of Manufacturers and ALEC, which also appear to be resisting climate change related regulations and policies."
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Silicon Valley tech giant Apple was ranked highest on the list and has an A+ for its support of climate change action and its positive engagement with a number of climate change policy areas.
Here are the report's key findings:
- 35 of the 50 most influential are actively lobbying against climate policy. They include companies in the fossil fuel value chain (ExxonMobil, Valero Energy, Chevron), energy intensive companies (BASF, ArcelorMittal, Bayer, Dow Chemical and Solvay) and electric utilities with large amounts of coal generating capacity (Southern Company, Duke Energy and American Electric Power).
- Also in this group of 35 influential companies holding back climate policy are four powerful automotive manufacturers (Fiat Chrysler, Ford, BMW and Daimler). The research found the companies lobbying to delay or dilute efficiency and CO2 emissions standards and procedures both in Europe and North America. Depending on region, passenger vehicle emissions account for 12% or more of all greenhouse gas emissions.
- On the other side, 15 of the 50 most influential are pushing for an ambitious climate policy agenda, favoring renewable power and electric vehicles. They include signatories to the RE100 initiative committing to buying 100% renewable power (Apple, Ikea, Unilever, Coca Cola and Nestle) as well as power sector companies (SSE, Enel, EDF, Iberdrola and National Grid) who are shifting their business models towards low carbon electricity generation.
"The data shows the climate policy agenda, in terms of corporate influencing, is being driven by a small number of massive global corporations," Dylan Tanner, InfluenceMap executive director, said in a statement. "It also shows a group of powerful of companies in the tech, consumer goods and utilities sectors increasingly pushing for policy to implement the Paris Agreement."
InfluenceMap also ranked "influencers" or powerful trade associations that actively lobby against climate policies. A number of trade associations received an "F" grade, but here are the bottom five:U.S. Chamber of Commerce; American Petroleum Institute; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity; National Mining Association; and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Check out the full list here.
==
==
This article contains the names of corporate trade groups that are known to be, or have been, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) members or supporters.
This is a partial list. You can add to it, if you cite your source.
Those groups known to be currently involved with ALEC, as of July 2011, appear in bold.
Corporate Board
As of 2011, trade groups on ALEC's corporate board are:[1]
A
- Academy of General Dentistry, Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference[2]
- Air Transport Association of America[3]
- American Association of Christian Schools (an organization of Christian schools that "has historically been a voice for Christian education in Washington, D.C. Today that purpose is carried on with even greater vigor. Protecting member schools from government entanglement, as well as promoting religious freedom, Christian education, and family values are the driving principles in directing the AACS legislative effort. . . . Membership will not be afforded to those associated with, members of, or in accord with the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, the Modern Charismatic Movement or the Ecumenical Movement."[4])[5]
- American Association of Health Plans[5]
- American Automobile Manufacturers Association (now the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)[5]
- American Bail Coalition, Private Enterprise Board member[1]
- American Bankers Association, Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Executive Committee member[6] and Financial Services Subcommittee Private Sector Chair[7]
- American Chemistry Council[5], "Director" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 "States & Nation Policy Summit,"[8] member of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force[9]
- American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, "Chairman" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference[10] ($50,000 in 2010),[11] and sponsor of the 2012 States & Nation Policy Summit in Washington, DC.[12] President and CEO Steve Miller spoke on "A Smarter Approach to Improving our Environment: Addressing the Costs of Proposed EPA Regulations on Energy Affordability," sponsored by the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting[13]
- American Council of Life Insurance[3]
- American Gas Association, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force member[14]
- American Institute of Certified Public Accountants[5]
- American Insurance Association, sponsor of the 2012 States & Nation Policy Summit in Washington, DC.[12]
- American Massage Therapy Association, Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference[2]
- American Optometric Association, Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference[2]
- American Petroleum Institute, Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference[2][5]
- American Plastics Council[3][5]
- American Shooting Sports Council (former gun industry trade association)[5]
- American Tort Reform Association,[5] ALEC Civil Justice Task Force member[15]
- American Trucking Association,[5] Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Executive Committee member[6]
- America's Credit Unions, Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference[2]
- Amusement and Music Operators Association ("a diverse group of companies engaged in the coin-operated amusement industry"[16]
- Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois[3]
- Associated Bond & Insurance Agency[5]
- Associated Builders and Contractors (representing merit shop contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and related firms)[5]
- Associated Industries of Florida[5]
- Association for Commercial Real Estate[5]
- Association for the Management and Operations of Transportation Infrastructure Assets (AMOTIA), ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force member[7]
- Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ("founded in 1943 to guard against the intrusion of government into the practice of medicine"[17])[5]
- Association of American Railroads[5]
- Association of Christian Schools[5]
- Association of Health Insurance Agents[18][5]
- Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, State corporate co-chair of Missouri[2]
- Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference[2]
B
C
- Campaign to Keep Travel Competitive (former travel industry lobbying group)[5]
- Carpet and Rug Institute[19]
- Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference[2]
- Chemical Manufacturers Association (now American Chemistry Council)[5], "Director" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 "States & Nation Policy Summit"[8]
- Cigar Association
- Chlorine Chemistry Council[3][5]
- Cigar Association of America, Inc.[3]
- Cintra USA (Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, one of the largest private developers of transport infrastructure in the world), ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force member[20][7]
- Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (automotive aftermarket trade group)[5]
- Council for Affordable Health Insurance[5]
- Council on State Taxation (COST), ALEC Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force member[21]
- CropLife America (formerly the American Crop Protection Association[5]), ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Member[22][23]"Agriculture Subcommittee"[24][25]
D
- Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS)[3][5]
E
- Edison Electric Institute,[5] Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference,[2] and sponsor of the 2012 States & Nation Policy Summit in Washington, DC.[12]
- Electricity Consumers Resource Council[5]
- Electronic Industries Association[5]
- Entertainment Software Association, ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force member,[26] Member of ALEC Utah Host Committee for 2012 annual meeting[27]
F
G
- Georgia Medical Assocation[18]
- Grocery Manufacturers of America[3][5]
H
- Health Insurance Association of America (merged with American Association of Health Plans in 2003 to become America's Health Insurance Plans orAHIP)[18][5]
I
- Illinois Corn Marketing Board[3]
- Illinois Energy Association[3]
- Illinois Financial Services Association[3]
- Illinois Petroleum Council[3]
- Illinois Retail Merchants Association[3]
- Illinois Road Builders Association[3]
- Illinois Soybean Association[3]
- Illinois State Medical Society[3]
- Independent Insurance Agents of America[5]
- Indiana Chamber of Commerce: Trustee Level Sponsor of ALEC's 2012 meeting in Salt Lake City. ^[28]
- Indiana Energy Association: Trustee Level Sponsor of ALEC's 2012 meeting in Salt Lake City. ^[29]
- International Council of Shopping Centers[5]
- International Franchise Association,[5] ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force member[7]
- International Mass Retail Association[5]
- Iowa Life and Health Insurance Association[5]
- Iowa Utility Association[5]
J
K
L
- Louisiana Chemical Association, "Trustee" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference[10] ($5,000 in 2010)[11]
- Louisiana Railroads Association, "Trustee" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference[10] ($5,000 in 2010)[11] and member of Louisiana Host Committee[2]
- Louisiana Realtors, "Trustee" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference[10] ($5,000 in 2010)[11] and Louisiana Host Committee member[2]
M
- Medical Association of Georgia[5]
- Michigan Association of Realtors ("the state’s largest professional real estate trade association"[30]), State corporate co-chair of Michigan[2]
- Mineral Resource Alliance[5]
- Missouri Association of Realtors, sponsor of "Missouri Night" at Antoine's Restaurant in New Orleans during the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting[31]
N
- National Association for Home Care[18]
- National Association for the Self-Employed[5]
- National Association of Bail Insurance Companies[5] (became the American Bail Coalition in 2001)
- National Association of Convenience Stores[5]
- National Association of Home Builders[5]
- National Association of Independent Insurers[5]
- National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies[32][6]
- National Association of Professional Employer Organizations[5]
- National Association of the Self-Employed[18]
- National Association of Water Companies, ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force member[7]
- National Beer Wholesalers Association[6]
- National Business Association[18][5]
- National Cable and Telecommunications Association, ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force member[26]
- National Council for Private School Accreditation[5]
- National Court Reporters Association[5]
- National Federation of Independent Business[18][5][33], State corporate co-chair of Alabama,[2] recipient in August 2011 of ALEC's Private Sector Member of the Year Award[34] and speaker-- via its Manager of Legislative Affairs, Kevin Kuhlman-- on "Health Insurance Exchanges: States in Charge!" at ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting[35]
- National Independent Private Schools Association[5]
- National Multi Housing Council[5]
- National Pawn Brokers Association[36]
- National Pork Producers Council[3]
- National Restaurant Association[5]
- National Rural Electric Cooperative Association sponsored the 2012 States & Nation Policy Meeting in Washington, DC.[12]
- National Soft Drink Association (now the American Beverage Association)[5]
- National Society of Public Accountants[5]
- Nationwide Insurance Companies[5]
- NetChoice ("coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers"[37]), "Director" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference[10] ($10,000 in 2010)[11] - Executive Director Steve DelBianco also spoke on the "Exploring ALEC positions on E-commerce and E-taxes" panel at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting in New Orleans.[38]
- Nevada Mining Association[5]
- Non-Bank Funds Transmitters Group[3]
- Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association[18][5]
- Nuclear Energy Institute[5]
O
- Oxygenated Fuels Association[5]
P
- Performance Marketing Association (represents the performance and affiliate marketing industry) - Executive Director Rebecca Madigan spoke on the "Exploring ALEC positions on E-commerce and E-taxes" panel at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting in New Orleans.[38]
- PhRMA, ALEC Private Enterprise Board member,[1] International Relations Task Force member,[39] 2011 recipient of ALEC's Private Sector Member of the Year Award,[34] "Chairman" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference[10] ($50,000 in 2010),[11] Louisiana Host Committee member[2] and sponsor of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's plenary luncheon speech as well as a speech by PhRMA President and CEO John Castellani[34][5]
- Professional Bail Agents of the US[5]
- Property Casualty Insurers of America, ALEC Civil Justice Task Force member[15]
Q
R
S
- Self Insurance Institute of America[5] (member-based association dedicated to protecting the business interests of companies involved in the self-insurance/alternative risk transfer industry)
- Society of Louisiana CPAs, "Trustee" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference[10] ($5,000 in 2010)[11] and Louisiana Host Committee member[2]
- Smokeless Tobacco Council[5]
- Steel Recycling Institute[3][5]
T
- TechAmerica, co-chair of ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force[40]
- TechFreedom (self-described "non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank"[41])[26]
- Texas Medical Association[18][5]
- Tobacco Institute[3][5]
U
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ALEC Education Task Force member[42]
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, ALEC Civil Justice Task Force member[15]
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Intellectual Property Center, ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force[26] andInternational Relations Task Force member[39]
V
W
- Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America[36]