LOBBYING 3 dk $

10/21

SEE REV DR EG SZABO

no merri

STAFFERS

see buy election bribery

see regulatory capture /dereg swampt things

see waxman markey 1 billion$ ?!

see COI

bak 7 23 slow save

---

glass ceiling BS on SVB

---

new FTM tool

2 24 open secrets DB

federal-and-state https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/federal-and-state)

---

OS 2 24

Top 20 Spenders, 2015-2023

Lobbying Client

State Total

Federal Total

Combined Total

US Chamber of Commerce (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000019798&name=US+Chamber+of+Commerce)

$4,497,484

$741,995,000

$746,492,484

National Assn of Realtors (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000062&name=National+Assn+of+Realtors)

$0

$533,560,847

$533,560,847

Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000504&name=Pharmaceutical+Research+%26+Manufacturers+of+America)

$611,201

$235,293,750

$235,904,951

Blue Cross/Blue Shield (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000109&name=Blue+Cross%2FBlue+Shield)

$0

$228,825,472

$228,825,472

American Hospital Assn (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000116&name=American+Hospital+Assn)

$0

$227,021,995

$227,021,995

Business Roundtable (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000032202&name=Business+Roundtable)

$0

$191,720,000

$191,720,000

American Medical Assn (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000068&name=American+Medical+Assn)

$0

$185,252,000

$185,252,000

Amazon.com (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000023883&name=Amazon.com)

$19,584,966

$141,660,000

$161,244,966

Boeing Co (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000100&name=Boeing+Co)

$9,855,672

$138,416,000

$148,271,672

Verizon Communications (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000079&name=Verizon+Communications)

$34,683,333

$105,158,309

$139,841,642

AT&T Inc (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000076&name=AT%26T+Inc)

$5,228,834

$128,329,000

$133,557,834

Alphabet Inc (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000067823&name=Alphabet+Inc)

$0

$133,549,000

$133,549,000

Chevron Corp (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000015&name=Chevron+Corp)

$55,465,352

$75,943,500

$131,408,852

Lockheed Martin (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000104&name=Lockheed+Martin)

$6,892,198

$123,889,015

$130,781,213

AARP (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000023726&name=AARP)

$33,285,086

$96,439,000

$129,724,086

Comcast Corp (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000461&name=Comcast+Corp)

$0

$129,622,000

$129,622,000

NCTA The Internet & Television Assn (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000022131&name=NCTA+The+Internet+%26+Television+Assn)

$0

$125,540,000

$125,540,000

Pfizer Inc (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000138&name=Pfizer+Inc)

$19,647,812

$101,997,650

$121,645,462

National Assn of Broadcasters (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000202&name=National+Assn+of+Broadcasters)

$0

$115,468,000

$115,468,000

Open Society Policy Center (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000055020&name=Open+Society+Policy+Center)

$0

$114,790,000

$114,790,000

---

see OS for table lnx

federal-and-state?emci=0f07f93e-24c1-ee11-b660-002248223197&emdi=d7534970-50c1-ee11-b660-002248223197&ceid=8246424#spenders

Top 20 Lobbying Firms or Lobbyists, 2015-2023

Lobbying Firm/Lobbyist

State Income

Federal Income

Combined Income

Akin, Gump et al (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000162&name=Akin%2C+Gump+et+al)

$12,075

$406,895,000

$406,907,075

Brownstein, Hyatt et al (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000724&name=Brownstein%2C+Hyatt+et+al)

$355,750

$376,840,250

$377,196,000

Ballard Partners (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000037635&name=Ballard+Partners)

$165,041,000

$121,967,000

$287,008,000

Holland & Knight (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000330&name=Holland+%26+Knight)

$15,547,287

$263,300,000

$278,847,287

BGR Group (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000021679&name=BGR+Group)

$24,000

$262,474,000

$262,498,000

Cornerstone Government Affairs (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000021939&name=Cornerstone+Government+Affairs)

$10,927,559

$237,324,500

$248,252,059

Squire Patton Boggs (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000067299&name=Squire+Patton+Boggs)

$0

$214,867,000

$214,867,000

Greenberg Traurig LLP (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000344&name=Greenberg+Traurig+LLP)

$117,485,662

$69,800,000

$187,285,662

Capitol Counsel (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000032306&name=Capitol+Counsel)

$0

$178,640,000

$178,640,000

Invariant LLC (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000034396&name=Invariant+LLC)

$0

$170,240,000

$170,240,000

K&L Gates (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000766&name=K%26L+Gates)

$237,573

$167,085,000

$167,322,573

Van Scoyoc Assoc (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000022304&name=Van+Scoyoc+Assoc)

$0

$167,005,000

$167,005,000

Southern Group (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000037698&name=Southern+Group)

$155,794,000

$40,000

$155,834,000

Mehlman, Castagnetti et al (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000022111&name=Mehlman%2C+Castagnetti+et+al)

$0

$155,202,000

$155,202,000

Forbes Tate Partners (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000066687&name=Forbes+Tate+Partners)

$1,501,620

$149,347,000

$150,848,620

Cassidy & Assoc (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000208&name=Cassidy+%26+Assoc)

$0

$149,815,000

$149,815,000

Crossroads Strategies (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000060861&name=Crossroads+Strategies)

$0

$138,640,000

$138,640,000

Covington & Burling (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000021942&name=Covington+%26+Burling)

$1,674,227

$134,297,381

$135,971,608

Williams & Jensen (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000000276&name=Williams+%26+Jensen)

$10,000

$135,000,000

$135,010,000

Thorn Run Partners (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=ALL&id=D000063712&name=Thorn+Run+Partners)

$12,000

$134,460,000

$134,472,000

---

Ranked Sectors, 2015-2023

Sector

State Total

Federal Total

Combined Total

Health (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=H)

$1,348,029,280

$5,606,710,995

$6,954,740,275

Finance/Insur/RealEst (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=F)

$1,168,936,970

$4,898,517,009

$6,067,453,979

Misc Business (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=N)

$1,190,004,312

$4,693,956,963

$5,883,961,275

Communic/Electronics (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=B)

$599,825,819

$4,130,317,921

$4,730,143,740

Energy/Nat Resource (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=E)

$1,083,912,817

$3,011,790,127

$4,095,702,944

Other (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=W)

$1,286,063,990

$2,362,550,334

$3,648,614,324

Transportation (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=M)

$434,649,116

$2,280,721,622

$2,715,370,738

Ideology/Single-Issue (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=Q)

$598,086,243

$1,425,933,645

$2,024,019,888

Agribusiness (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=A)

$321,946,201

$1,326,854,316

$1,648,800,517

Defense (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=D)

$22,116,775

$1,143,639,785

$1,165,756,560

Labor (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=P)

$506,685,704

$442,767,079

$949,452,783

Construction (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2023&id=C)

$246,666,602

$537,032,068

$783,698,6

// above?

Top 20 Industries, 2015-2023

Industry

State Total

Federal Total

Combined Total

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=H04)

$295,505,810

$2,801,151,234

$3,096,657,044

Insurance (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=F09)

$498,426,829

$1,432,123,944

$1,930,550,773

Electronics Mfg & Equip (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=B12)

$153,560,827

$1,529,300,695

$1,682,861,522

Civil Servants/Public Officials (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=W03)

$735,920,220

$857,131,364

$1,593,051,584

Hospitals/Nursing Homes (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=H02)

$510,873,598

$1,018,319,468

$1,529,193,066

Oil & Gas (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=E01)

$350,488,720

$1,125,806,096

$1,476,294,816

Electric Utilities (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=E08)

$348,608,906

$1,071,374,600

$1,419,983,506

Business Associations (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=N00)

$175,761,056

$1,181,569,920

$1,357,330,976

Real Estate (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=F10)

$262,478,603

$985,757,252

$1,248,235,855

Telecom Services (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=B09)

$273,457,591

$924,644,959

$1,198,102,550

Health Services/HMOs (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=H03)

$260,084,426

$904,903,286

$1,164,987,712

Securities & Investment (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=F07)

$94,039,738

$1,036,228,484

$1,130,268,222

Health Professionals (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=H01)

$281,328,585

$814,094,487

$1,095,423,072

Education (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=W04)

$336,599,388

$717,505,954

$1,054,105,342

Misc Manufacturing & Distributing (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=N15)

$99,762,938

$943,038,215

$1,042,801,153

Air Transport (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=M01)

$64,217,220

$946,099,257

$1,010,316,477

Automotive (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=M02)

$159,620,034

$642,647,778

$802,267,812

Internet (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=B13)

$71,544,777

$676,387,269

$747,932,046

Misc Issues (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=Q10)

$241,758,227

$461,155,785

$702,914,012

TV/Movies/Music (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2023&id=B02)

$57,777,574

$589,974,000

$647,751,574

---

---

OMG THIEL

FT

:{:{Palantir’s ‘revolving door’ with government spurs huge growth Peter Thiel-chaired group has Washington and Westminster network that helped secure around $3bn in official contracts (L-R) Palantir chief executive Alex Karp, Palantir chair Peter Thiel, US President Donald Trump and US vice-president JD Vance © FT montage/Bloomberg/Getty Images for The Cambridge Union Palantir’s ‘revolving door’ with government spurs huge growth on x (opens in a new window) Palantir’s ‘revolving door’ with government spurs huge growth on facebook (opens in a new window) Palantir’s ‘revolving door’ with government spurs huge growth on linkedin (opens in a new window) Save current progress 0%}:

Tabby Kinder in San Francisco and Cynthia O’Murchu in London PublishedFEB 7 2025

Palantir is profiting from a “revolving door” of executives and officials passing between the $264bn data intelligence company and high level positions in Washington and Westminster, creating an influence network who have guided its extraordinary growth. }:

The US group, whose billionaire chair Peter Thiel has been a key backer of Donald Trump, has enjoyed an astonishing stock price rally on the back of strong rise of sales from government contracts and deals with the world’s largest corporations. Detailed findings by the Tech Transparency Project (TTP), which analysed transparency disclosures and dozens of job moves, as well as US and UK public records obtained by the Financial Times, show how Palantir has hired extensively from government agencies critical to its sales. The analysis reveals the US group’s sprawling influence network which includes: deep ties with largest client, the Department of Defense; a six-fold increase in lobbying spending in the US in the past decade; and creating a non-profit foundation to fund academic research and shape policy discussions. Palantir has won more than $2.7bn in US contracts since 2009, including over $1.3bn in Pentagon contracts, according to federal records. In the UK, Palantir has been awarded more than £376mn in contracts, according to Tussell, a data provider.

Palantir declined to comment. The company’s executives “have their fingerprints all over the Trump transition and administration”, said Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “Silicon Valley used to say ‘we don’t have to lobby because we have a superior product’, but now it is all in on politics.” Palantir argues its data analysis products are in demand from clients including BP and Hertz due to their market-leading ability to analyse complex sets of information. Its technology is credited with helping kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, distributing Covid-19 vaccines and convicting financier Bernard Madoff. Palantir chief Alex Karp — an outspoken Democratic donor who backed Trump’s opponent Kamala Harris — said it would gain further windfalls from the new president’s expected focus on budget efficiency as well as higher spending on national security.

:{:{Its shares rose 340 per cent over the course of 2024, when it was the top performer in the S&P 500. Palantir’s top executives, Thiel and Karp, have earned over $1bn in share sales since Trump’s November election victory. “This is a revolution. Some people will get their heads cut off,” said Karp announcing stellar quarterly earnings on Monday that sent it stock to new highs. “We’re expecting to see really unexpected things and to win.”}:

The revolving door

While Elon Musk has emerged as Trump’s biggest Silicon Valley booster, Thiel was the tech sector’s champion of the president during his first campaign in 2016. The investor also played a crucial role in the ascendancy of JD Vance, launching the new vice-president’s venture capital career before becoming the largest donor to his campaign for US senate in 2022. }:

Thiel threw a celebration party for Trump’s inauguration at his DC home last month, attended by Vance as well as Silicon Valley leaders like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI’s Sam Altman. After the US election in November, Trump began tapping Palantir executives for key government roles. Jacob Helberg, senior adviser to Karp, was nominated as under secretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment, which would make him the top economic policy and trade official at the State Department. Meanwhile, Gregory Barbaccia, who worked at Palantir for a decade until 2020, was named federal chief information officer at the executive office of the President, overseeing the country’s $70bn IT budget. Palantir has also assembled former lawmakers and government officials from both Republican and Democrat backgrounds. In August, it recruited Mike Gallagher, an ex-Republican congressman who led the House Select Committee on China, to help identify contract opportunities.

He resigned from the House in April 2024 and under federal policy is banned from lobbying Congress for one year. In 2023, Palantir hired Geof Kahn, a former CIA veteran who worked on Trump’s 2016 transition team, and Jamie Fly, former foreign and national security adviser to Florida senator Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state. Since 2019, it has hired former senior defence and legal officials, such as Trump administration appointees Matthew Turpin and Alexander Alden, Obama-era staffer Wendy Anderson and ex-Biden assistant Funmi Olorunnipa Badejo. At least six individuals have moved between Palantir and the Pentagon’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO), an office that oversees the defence department’s adoption of data, analytics and AI, according to the TTP. Meanwhile, Joe Lonsdale, a venture capitalist and Palantir co-founder, has played a central role in setting up and staffing Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, a new advisory group seeking to cut swaths of the federal budget. A close ally of the Tesla chief, Lonsdale also helped establish and finance the pro-Trump America PAC, which became the vehicle through which Musk donated over $239mn to Trump’s campaign.

These sorts of moves allow companies like Palantir to gain “credibility on Capitol Hill,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, and help them “exert both direct and indirect influence on contracting and appropriations”. Hauser added: “Palantir is doing it because it has been proven over decades that the revolving door can help companies win more contracts.” Ramping up lobbying In October, Palantir hired the firm of one of Washington’s most prominent corporate lobbyists, Miller Strategies, to lobby on defence policy and appropriations, according to federal disclosures. The firm’s head, Jeff Miller, had established himself as the go-to lobbyist for influencing the Trump administration during the president’s first term in office. His other tech clients include SpaceX, Amazon and Apple.

:{:{Recommended News in-depth}:

Palantir Technologies Inc

Palantir becomes a ‘Trump trade’ as investors bet on higher defence spending

:{:{ Overall, Palantir ramped up spending on lobbying last year to $5.8mn, up from around $1mn in 2015, according to federal disclosures. However, that compares to $12.3mn by Google, and $12.4mn and $8.8mn by traditional defence companies Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman respectively. Palantir has also backed the creation of a lobby trade group, the New American Industrial Alliance, which is advised by former Trump administration officials and aims to overhaul the Pentagon’s work with defence contractors.}:

It is also backed by Lonsdale’s 8VC venture firm. In 2023, it launched the Palantir Foundation for Defense Policy and International Affairs, which gained non-profit tax exempt status. The group said it is a “non-partisan organisation dedicated to advancing national security”, and was set up to influence policy discussions by funding academic research and hosting conferences. It publishes a journal called The Republic, with its first issue featuring an essay titled, ‘Don’t let copyright kill American AI’. Palantir has used a similar playbook in the UK. Its British business is overseen by Louis Mosley, a former activist in the Conservative party, while head of UK corporate affairs Ben Mascall was previously an adviser at the Ministry of Defence and the head of strategic communications at Downing Street. }:}:

:{:{Ahead of winning a contract worth up to £330mn with the NHS in November 2023 to help manage patient data, Palantir recruited two senior NHS officials specialising in AI and data, a move which raised concerns about the company’s growing ties to the health service. Palantir has also hired civil servants from departments including the UK’s Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, and forged other links with British government officials. It has used former high-level civil servants, such as former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers, to broker introductions to the UK government. }:

:{:{Recommended Aerospace & Defence}:

Palantir’s relentless rise

The company has been a client of Global Counsel, the lobbying firm founded by Labour peer Peter Mandelson — the incoming British ambassador to the US. Lobbying expenditure data is not publicly available in the UK. Palantir attended at least 13 ministerial-level meetings between 2022 and 2023, but also extended hospitality such as drinks and dinners to senior officials such as Caroline Bellamy, the chief data officer at the Ministry of Defence where Palantir has a $75mn contract. }:}:

In January 2024, Thiel personally met Lord Dominic Johnson, then investment minister, to “develop a relationship”, according to documents released to the FT under transparency laws. Johnson planned to address concerns about the lack of access to the European marketplace by Palantir’s defence arm and pitch the UK as a “world-leading destination and incubator for venture philanthropy”, the documents show. According to heavily redacted meeting notes provided to the FT, Thiel expressed pessimism about the UK economy citing high taxes, low growth and “the fact that growth is driven by real estate rather than innovation like tech”.

---

Top Spenders 2023

===

SZABO SWAMPTHING REV DR

...Lee Zeldin is a Chair of America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a policy group backed by Christian Nationalist oil baron Tim Dunn, a major Trump donor who has publicly stated he wants to end the classification of CO2 as a pollutant.

But Doug Burgum, who served as governor of the fracking powerhouse state of North Dakota and has deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, stands to be the major player directing Trump’s energy policy. As Interior Secretary, he’ll oversee hundreds of millions of acres of federal land that oil companies are itching to drill on. But even more, he’ll be coordinating the administration’s “energy dominance” agenda as Trump’s “energy czar,” heading up Trump’s National Energy Council and occupying a seat on the National Security Council.

All told, oil billionaires like Hamm stand to benefit greatly from a new Trump administration that promises to be a close ally of fossil fuel interests, even if this means intensifying the climate chaos that’s destabilizing the world and causing massive human dislocation and suffering.

*Potential Fractures in Billionaire Rule?

There are other billionaire and corporate blocs set to benefit from Trump’s rule, such as private prison and detention companies like CoreCivic and GEO (who Trump Attorney General nominee Pam Biondi lobbied for). And there are a slew of massive individual billionaire donors, from the railroad heir magnate Timothy Mellon to ultra-right shipping barrons Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, who gave enormous sums to Trump and other Republicans.

While we face daunting challenges in a period of intensified direct billionaire rule, it’s also worth remembering that there is potential for fissures within the billionaire class. Trump’s cabinet contains blocs that are in tension with each other: neocons versus isolationists, austerity backers who also want vast government subsidies for corporate elites, and people who want to calm markets versus people who want to impose tariffs or just seek political revenge. Trump is notoriously capricious and volatile and is quick to turn on those who were once insiders.

And of course, there’s the fundamental conflict between Trump’s mere rhetoric of populism and his true agenda of billionaire rule that will further immiserate the working class. This will be a challenging period for progressive forces, but the left should seek to monitor and, to the extent possible, exploit divisions among billionaires.

Note: Maps in this post may be updated as new information comes along

This is the first in a new series of LittleSis posts mapping out billionaire power in current U.S. politics, including the new Trump administration. To see the latest posts in this LittleSis series, sign up for our newsletter and follow us on X, Bluesky, Facebook, and Instagram.

//

an 6 26

pp

IFrame Content

My family’s morning routine is usually pretty ordinary. We wake up early, drink some coffee and get our 1-year-old ready for daycare. But one Wednesday morning last month, I found myself uttering to my wife a sentence that sounded frankly surreal to both of us: “Just to let you know, I’m about to call Trump.”

Then, hoping to avoid any urgent diaper events, I ducked into the next room and dialed up the president.

I’d been trying to reach President Donald Trump for a few days. Each time, my heart would start pounding. After nearly two decades as a journalist, I’m reasonably used to talking to powerful people. But cold-calling the president of the United States — on his personal cellphone — made me feel like a cub reporter all over again.

“Hello?” a voice said on the other end of the line. This time, the president had picked up.

I introduced myself and told Trump I’m a reporter with ProPublica.

“I’m writing a story about a big supporter of yours in the oil industry, Jeff Hildebrand,” I said. “Can I ask what you think about him?”

By this point I had spent months reporting on Hildebrand, a little-known billionaire — and major Trump donor — who owns an empire of low-producing oil and gas wells across the country. “Stripper wells” like these contribute relatively little to the U.S. energy supply but emit vast amounts of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas.

By calling the president, I was hoping for some color on his relationship with Hildebrand. He had, after all, named Hildebrand’s wife ambassador to Costa Rica. My reporting so far had also revealed that the administration was gathering advice from oil industry groups backed by Hildebrand, and that it planned to weaken environmental regulations on stripper wells — potentially making Hildebrand even richer.

“I hear he does a good job,” Trump replied. “Don’t know him very well. OK?”

At first I thought the exchange undermined my story, making Hildebrand seem less central to the president’s energy policies than I’d suspected. But I realized that Trump’s comments illustrated something important about how this administration works. Trump appeared to have little clue about Hildebrand’s business, but when I mentioned that it was threatened by the “Biden methane rules,” the president was quick to respond, “Certainly we do the opposite of what Biden did.”

Trump, in other words, may be only vaguely aware of the people and groups helping to rewrite all manner of consequential policies. But what matters in Washington right now are not so much technical policy details but support for the president and an affinity with the broader ideological project: Deregulate everything.

Even if the president is only loosely familiar with Hildebrand, the oil tycoon is someone you should know about. As a climate reporter, I’m always looking for ways to make the seemingly abstract problem of global warming feel more concrete, approachable and even personal. With Hildebrand, I felt I had found a compelling character who is also the poster boy for a hugely consequential issue: Stripper wells collectively contribute just 6% of the nation’s oil and gas, but scientists have found they’re responsible for roughly half the sector’s methane pollution. That means they play an outsize role in climate change, which is amplifying heat waves, droughts and wildfires.

My previous reporting has shown that a former lobbyist for Hildebrand’s company — who now has a top post at the Environmental Protection Agency — has been rewriting methane regulations with advice from the oil industry. (An EPA spokesperson said the official “fulfilled all his ethical obligations to the letter.”)

The EPA’s press office declined to comment on the details of its plans but confirmed it is working on a proposal to “provide relief” to the oil industry, saying in a statement, “We heard consistently from American oil and natural gas producers (shocker that we meet with stakeholders) that the Biden-Harris Administration’s oil and gas methane regulations were unworkable and unnecessarily restricted American energy dominance.”

In the story we ultimately published, I took a deep dive into how Hildebrand made his fortune, racking up dozens of environmental violations across the country, and now stands to benefit from the rollback that his former lobbyist is carrying out.

I asked Hildebrand multiple times for an interview, even sending a letter to his home, but he didn’t respond. A spokesperson for his company, Hilcorp, said its operations complied with state and federal rules, adding that Hilcorp was “proud” of recent efforts to reduce its methane emissions.

As with many climate change stories, it can all sound pretty bleak. But in a world where global warming fixes can seem impossibly daunting, limiting methane pollution from stripper wells is the rare low-hanging fruit, Andrew Logan of Ceres, a climate advocacy group, told me. “If you could lose 6% of production and cut emissions in half, who wouldn’t make that trade?” Logan said.

Instead, the Trump administration is doubling down on the forms of energy that contribute most to global warming. In January, the president invited Hildebrand and two dozen other energy executives to the White House to discuss investing in Venezuela’s decrepit oil industry — which emits more methane, relative to production, than almost any other major oil producing country, according to the International Energy Agency.

Many of the executives couched their enthusiasm with caveats. ExxonMobil’s CEO called Venezuela “uninvestable” without changes to its legal system. The head of ConocoPhillips wanted U.S. government financing.

But Hildebrand had already seen how loyalty could be rewarded. Even though he had no notable operations outside the U.S., he hunched toward a microphone and said in a halting voice, “Hilcorp is fully committed and ready to go to rebuilding the infrastructure in Venezuela.”

“That’s good,” Trump said. “You’ll be very happy.”

//

---

ref apr 1 2026

EPA’s Aaron Szabo Once Helped Write Oil Industry Argument Against Methane Rules — ProPublica

The Trump administration official leading an effort to loosen rules on methane pollution was an unnamed author of key industry arguments against those same rules just four years ago when he was an oil and gas lobbyist.

Aaron Szabo, an assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, is listed in PDF metadata as the author of a January 2022 comment letter objecting to proposed controls on methane emissions in the oil and gas industry. The letter was submitted to the EPA by the American Exploration and Production Council, which represents some of the industry’s largest emitters of the planet-warming gas, including ConocoPhillips, Diversified Energy and Hilcorp. Szabo’s name does not appear in the document itself, but it can be found in information embedded by the software used to create the PDF file.

Szabo was registered as a lobbyist for one of the AXPC’s lesser-known members, Ovintiv, when he drafted the arguments against the restrictions, which were finalized later in the Biden administration. He has also lobbied for other clients in the oil and chemicals sectors. While he did not hide that work during his confirmation last year as head of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, he described it in terms that avoided any mention of efforts to influence climate policy: “I learned how regulated entities comply with the federal government’s thousands of regulations and policies. I also saw firsthand that the people working in these companies want to ensure the environment is properly protected.”

In his current role overseeing federal climate rules at the EPA, Szabo has been soliciting input and even specific regulatory language from oil industry groups that stand to gain from watered-down methane rules, according to internal emails, calendar entries and records of closed-door conversations reviewed by ProPublica.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., the ranking Democrat on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, pointed to Szabo’s previous lobbying as evidence that the EPA had effectively been captured by the oil and gas industry. “Now he can do Big Oil’s dirty work from inside the EPA,” Whitehouse told ProPublica in an email.

As part of its plan to “unleash American energy,” the Trump administration has waged an unprecedented campaign against regulations on fossil fuels, the main cause of global warming. One of its biggest moves was to repeal the “endangerment finding” that classified greenhouse gases as pollutants — the basis for the EPA’s authority to limit emissions at all. Rather than throw out the methane rules entirely, however, Szabo’s office is working to revise them, emails and documents show. It has already delayed many of the compliance deadlines until next year.

Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a climate superpollutant, responsible for one-third of the rise in global temperatures since preindustrial times, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. When it escapes into the atmosphere without being burned for energy, it can trap 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide, research shows. The oil and gas business is the largest industrial source of U.S. methane emissions, in part because of leaks from poorly maintained equipment. If it is uneconomical to collect the gas for sale, companies sometimes intentionally release it in a process known as venting.

To cut down on methane discharges, President Joe Biden’s EPA imposed much stricter controls on oil and gas operations, including requiring increased monitoring for leaks and equipment upgrades. According to agency estimates, the new rules would have lowered the industry’s methane emissions by nearly 80%. And, given that the gas breaks down relatively quickly, this would have been one of the fastest ways to reduce global warming.

Industry groups pushed back. In the January 2022 letter that Szabo helped to draft, the AXPC used the word “burdensome” 10 times to describe the new requirements and pushed for more “flexibility” to allow for less expensive leak-detection methods and less frequent monitoring, among other requests.

The group also cast doubt on the rules’ expected climate and health benefits, highlighting what it called “the importance of communicating the significant uncertainties within the estimates.” The AXPC’s chief executive, Anne Bradbury, added in a later statement that the rules risked “undercutting US production in the near and long-term — which will lead to increased energy costs and reduced energy security.”

Do you have any information we should know about Trump’s EPA, oil industry lobbying or methane pollution? Alex Cuadros can be reached by email at alex.cuadros@propublica.org and on Signal at alexcuadros.63.

The AXPC failed to persuade the Biden administration to change its approach. But it renewed its push after President Donald Trump returned to office and ordered federal agencies to “suspend, revise, or rescind” any “undue burden” on domestic energy production.

Szabo, after two years as a fellow at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, joined the administration on Day 1 as an adviser to EPA chief Lee Zeldin. He immediately signaled that he planned to weaken the regulations he had argued against as a lobbyist. His staff met with AXPC representatives as early as Feb. 6, 2025, less than three weeks after Trump’s inauguration, to discuss its petition to “reconsider” the methane rules, according to emails and calendar entries obtained through public records requests and shared with ProPublica by Fieldnotes, a watchdog group that investigates the oil and gas industry. His staff went on to meet with them at least twice more, and Szabo himself was listed as a required attendee for a meeting with Bradbury last July.

The AXPC didn’t respond to emails from ProPublica seeking comment.

According to records of closed-door conversations reviewed by ProPublica, other oil industry representatives have described their meetings with Szabo and his staff as highly favorable to their interests. “Mr. Szabo assured us that the EPA is focused on these [methane] rules and doing everything that can be done to limit the damage they will cause,” the leadership of a major trade group wrote to its members last year in an internal newsletter.

Lee Fuller, of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, also spoke glowingly about his meeting with Szabo’s office on a conference call with industry representatives last year.

“It was one of the more fascinating meetings that we’ve ever had, just because they were suddenly willing to talk to us,” he said. “And they’re also suddenly willing to talk about things that we’ve been trying to get them to do for years, and they’ve never even let it kind of come onto the radar screen.”

The IPAA declined to answer specific questions from ProPublica but linked to a September 2025 letter in which the group publicly asked the EPA for exceptions to the methane rules.

Szabo’s office has even invited oil industry groups to offer specific wording for the revised rules. “We had a call several weeks back re. pneumatics on temporary equipment,” Mike O’Connor of the American Petroleum Institute wrote to an EPA official, referring to devices that are a major source of methane emissions. “EPA had informally requested input on this topic and any suggested reg. text language. We are providing the attached draft document as informal input to EPA’s inquiry.” The draft called for a number of exemptions.

The shift in priorities under Szabo can also be seen in communications from the EPA itself. In a June 2025 email reviewed by ProPublica, an agency official asked O’Connor to meet and discuss alternative leak-detection methods. Echoing the language in the AXPC comment that Szabo helped to draft, the official spoke of “the additional flexibility we would like to pursue.”

“I think their agenda was, from what I could tell, to do what industry wanted,” one former EPA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe confidential discussions, said of Szabo and other Trump appointees at the agency.

“Since when is it a bad thing for public officials to ask the public what they think?” the EPA said in an emailed statement, referring to Szabo’s interactions with oil industry representatives. Szabo “fulfilled all his ethical obligations to the letter. He met with EPA career ethics staff when he started at EPA to ensure he is aware of and complies with federal ethics requirements.”

Szabo’s affinities are hardly a secret. He is thanked by name in the EPA chapter of Project 2025, the deregulatory blueprint for the second Trump administration. As part of the nomination process for his appointment at the EPA, he also submitted ethics disclosures listing oil, natural gas and chemicals companies he had lobbied for.

Still, at his confirmation hearing on March 5 last year, he repeatedly declined to elaborate on his role in Project 2025, beyond saying he provided “general advice and thoughts” on the Clean Air Act.

• ### Alex Cuadros

• Bluesky
  • LinkedIn

I report on climate change and how people and institutions are responding to it.

Need to Get in Touch?

I welcome tips or documents about Trump administration climate policy or actions by private companies or institutions that may impact the climate.

---

---

free press

Drain the Swamp? MAGA Lobbyists Say They’re ‘Drinking from a Fire Hose.’

(Illustration by The Free Press)

Once upon a time, Donald Trump promised to clean up Washington. But for the swampiest industry of all, business is booming.

By Gabe Kaminsky

05.05.25 —U.S. Politics

U.S. Politics

Breaking news, deep investigations, and eye-opening commentary that favor no party.

Since 2016, Donald Trump has promised his supporters that he will ”—the president’s catchall pledge to end corruption in Washington. But as his second administration gets busy remaking the federal government, business is good for one of D.C.’s most lucrative—and “swampiest”—lines of work: lobbying. And for those lobbyists enmeshed in MAGA World, business has never been better.

One of the biggest winners is Jeff Miller, a veteran Republican lobbyist who has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in donations for Trump and the GOP. His phone has been ringing off the hook ever since election night, which he spent in the grand ballroom of Mar-a-Lago, a few tables away from the incoming president, along with J.D. Vance and Elon Musk.

“We went all-in to make sure President Trump had the resources to win, and we’ve been drinking from a fire hose ever since,” he told The Free Press.

Miller’s firm, Miller Strategies, posted at least $8.5 million in lobbying revenue in the first quarter of 2025—a 190 percent increase from its $2.9 million haul at the same time last year.

His is just one of the lobbying firms with close ties to Trump that cashed in on their influence between January and March, the period captured in the latest lobbying disclosures. They illustrate how, in Trump’s Washington, the “swamp” is far from drained.

Along with other close allies of Trump, Miller is a founding member of a new, invite-only MAGA moguls club in Georgetown called Executive Branch. The club costs $500,000 to join and already has a waitlist. Its co-founders include Donald Trump Jr.; Alex Witkoff and Zach Witkoff, the sons of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East; and Omeed Malik, a megadonor who was a seed investor in Tucker Carlson’s new media venture.

Miller Strategies, based in Washington, D.C., is lobbying on behalf of powerhouse companies like Zoom, NASDAQ, Apple, Sam Altman’s OpenAI, and Comcast. In March, it signed Cornell University, which, along with other elite colleges, has been roped into Trump’s investigations into alleged racial discrimination and antisemitism on their campuses.

Another new Miller client is Palantir, a data software company that was awarded a $30 million contract from the Trump administration to assist in the government’s deportation efforts.

“Despite all the rhetoric about ‘draining the swamp,’ there remains a thriving industry of lobbying firms who will help those willing to pay for access in Washington, D.C.,” said Michael Beckel, the senior research director for Issue One, a nonpartisan money-in-politics watchdog group.

It’s an echo of the good times that had been enjoyed by Democratic lobbyists with close ties to the Biden White House. For instance, Jeff Ricchetti, the brother of then–White House counselor Steve Ricchetti, saw his lobbying business boom during the Biden years: His lobbying revenues increased fivefold in the first three months of Biden’s presidency. Thus it has always been: When a Republican is in office, firms tied to the GOP thrive; when Democrats are in, the Democratic lobbying firms do well.

Except that Trump has long promised to clean up Washington. On the campaign trail in 2016 he committed to “a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.” But that pledge has long been forgotten. In the 2024 election, lobbyists registered as agents of foreign governments helped raise more than $10 million for Trump, according to research by Issue One.

Miller was listed in that report because of his work for the Japanese government, his firm’s only foreign client. Miller refuses to sign Chinese clients—“even the ones who say things like, ‘Oh, we just moved into Singapore,’ or wherever,” Miller told The Free Press.

Other firms aren’t so picky.

Ballard Partners, the firm of Republican superlobbyist and Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard, has signed more than 130 clients since Trump’s victory last November. It’s a staggering number given that the firm had signed a total of 178 between 2021 and 2024. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Attorney General Pam Bondi both previously worked at the firm.

With 10 offices around the world, including in Istanbul, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh, Ballard posted at least $14 million in lobbying revenue in the first quarter of 2025. That’s triple its $4.2 million haul during the first quarter of 2024.

One new client of Ballard’s is Pirelli, an Italian tire manufacturer that the firm signed one month before Trump’s inauguration. Pirelli’s largest shareholder, with a 37 percent stake, is a Chinese state-owned company called Sinochem. In 2021, Sinochem merged with ChemChina, a company identified by the U.S. Department of Defense as an arm of the Chinese military. Pirelli has paid Ballard at least $120,000 since that December lobbying registration, filings show.

Among Ballard’s controversial clients, perhaps the most high-profile is TikTok. Trump delivered a major win for Ballard and TikTok on his first day in office, when he signed an executive order that extended a congressionally mandated deadline for a sale of the popular social media platform by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance.

Foreign ties are nothing new for Ballard. Before Bondi was attorney general, she worked as a lobbyist at Ballard for the gas-rich country of Qatar, which has long harbored the leaders of Hamas. Bondi also lobbied for iGas USA—a Florida-based company that received a large investment from a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Until July of last year, Brian Ballard and his partner, John O’Hanlon, lobbied for iGas USA. Ballard Partners declined to comment.

[ ](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!4Ynd!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9e2b06b7-44c1-4fb6-adc0-94b419c66ac4_1320x30.png)

Another firm flexing its influence early on in Trump’s Washington is Florida-based Continental Strategy. It was founded in 2021 by former Trump adviser Carlos Trujillo and employs both Katie Wiles, the daughter of the White House chief of staff, and Alberto Martinez, who served as a chief of staff in the Senate to now–Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Lobbying disclosures show that Continental netted $3.6 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to revenue of $127,500 for the same period last year. The firm has added at least 50 clients since Trump’s victory.

It’s hardly a surprise that the firm is in Trump’s good graces. One insider told The Free Press that Trujillo and his colleagues helped raise $15 million for Trump’s inauguration. Trujillo did not dispute the figure.

“We didn’t just show up in Trump World two months ago,” Trujillo told The Free Press—saying that his relationships “make it easy to navigate” Washington.

As business booms for Continental, it is already delivering wins for some clients—with Trump’s blessing. The firm helped broker a deal for a consortium led by BlackRock—that included Continental’s client, the Swiss-based Mediterranean Shipping Company—to pay $23 billion for ports in Panama and across the world. According to a person familiar with the lobbying push, Trujillo’s firm privately secured support from Trump and previewed the deal to federal officials. The president hailed the deal in his March speech to Congress, calling it a step toward “reclaiming” the Panama Canal, a top priority of his administration.

Continental has established an in-house policy of working only with foreign clients that it sees as aligned with American interests, according to two people familiar with the firm.

Then there’s Mercury Public Affairs, where now–White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles worked as a lobbyist until 2024. Former Trump campaign adviser Bryan Lanza is a partner at the firm, where revenue climbed to $5.2 million in the first quarter of 2025—doubling since the last quarter of 2024. It registered on behalf of around 70 clients in 2024 and 2025, according to lobbying filings.

“The calls started coming in last summer, before Biden dropped out,” said one person familiar with Mercury’s booming operation.

After the election, Lanza registered to lobby for the Chinese electronics giant Xiaomi, which was placed on a Pentagon blacklist during Trump’s first term over alleged Chinese military ties. (The designation was later removed under Biden.)

Mercury clients have included Qatar, the Turkish government, a Chinese surveillance firm linked to China’s persecution of the Uyghurs, and a Chinese solar panel manufacturer called JinkoSolar that saw its Florida factory raided in 2023 after reports the company was linked to forced labor in China.

Mercury has hauled in hundreds of thousands of dollars since 2020 to lobby for China’s Alibaba Group and millions of dollars from Gotion—an electric vehicle battery manufacturer and subsidiary of a Chinese company that pledged in 2022 group documents to “carry out” activities for the Chinese Communist Party. Multiple reports in 2020 linked Alibaba Group to China’s surveillance of Uyghur Muslims. An early client for Lanza upon his joining in 2017 was ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications giant for which Mercury said its work “may inure to the benefit of the People’s Republic of China,” Justice Department filings show.

“As long as evil political regimes like the Chinese Communist Party and the companies they control have willing representatives in Washington, the ‘swamp’ is never going to be fully drained,” said Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who specializes in U.S.-China relations.

There are, however, limits to how much foreign baggage lawmakers are willing to tolerate.

:{“The problem with Mercury is that so many of their clients are total shitbags,” said one senior Republican congressional staffer, “so they have trouble getting meetings.”

Drain the Swamp? MAGA Lobbyists Say They’re ‘Drinking from a Fire Hose.’}:

endit?

... “so they have trouble getting meetings.”}:

---

==

desmog 4 24

fossil fuel interest groups have mobilized quickly to oppose a new rule issued by the Biden administration designed to speed up America’s transition to hybrid and electric vehicles.

The rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized on March 20, limits emissions from tailpipes on new cars, starting in 2027.

Well before the EPA finalized the new standard, powerful corporate lobbies like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) had already promised to spend at least a million dollars campaigning against the rule by falsely portraying it as a “ban” on new cars. The group’s warn viewers that their freedoms and choices “will soon be taking a back seat to big government.”

The EPA predicts that the change would result in around two-thirds of new vehicle sales being hybrid or electric by 2032 — up from around eight percent today.

Beyond stopping more than 7 billion tons of carbon pollution, the agency predicts that the rule could save drivers more than $60 billion in fuel and maintenance costs, according to an EPA fact sheet that accompanied the final rule. The pollution reduction benefits would particularly benefit Black and brown communities because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from air pollution.

“These strongest-ever pollution standards for cars solidify America’s leadership in building a clean transportation future and creating good-paying American jobs,” EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement.

Compared to the EPA’s initial proposal, the final rule was scaled back to give car manufacturers more time to comply, but the New York Times still described the new standard as “one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history.”

The heads of AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute (API) — the leading trade group for the oil and gas industry — declared in a joint statement that the rule “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”

In February, AFPM had already begun portraying the rule as a “car ban” and announced a “seven-figure issue campaign” featuring TV and digital ads, as well as billboards and text messages. Some of the efforts target electoral swing states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The group also launched a website that warns readers, in all caps, to “keep the government’s hands off our cars!”

Despite the industry’s attempt to misleadingly brand the new standard, “this is not a ban of internal combustion engines,” Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.

Last year, AFPM spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government — more than any year in its history — according to OpenSecrets.

The top two bills the group reported lobbying for are designed to prevent the EPA from finalizing or enforcing vehicle emissions standards. Both bills passed the House last year. (Chevron, API, Koch Industries, and Marathon Petroleum are among the other industry groups and companies that lobbied for these bills last year.)

In addition to lobbying Congress and running million-dollar public influence campaigns, corporate trade groups have increasingly used lawsuits and the threat of costly, time-consuming litigation to stop or delay climate-related regulations.

Earlier this month, for instance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a long-delayed rule that requires public companies to disclose some of their emissions and climate risks that could impact their businesses. While the published rule was substantially weaker than what the SEC originally proposed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was among a handful of conservative interest groups that immediately challenged the measure in court.

Another recent EPA rule targeting methane emissions also met with opposition from Republican officials and oil and gas interests, according to Politico.

And on March 6, barely a month after the EPA finalized a separate rule limiting soot pollution, API, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber were among eight trade groups that sued the agency in the D.C. Circuit court.

‘Prepared to challenge it in court’

In a blog post, AFPM claims that the EPA “does not have authority to overhaul the U.S. economy or transportation system or compel — directly or otherwise — the use of EVs to address vehicle emissions.”

Similar objections to the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations have found a receptive audience among the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

If the EPA doesn’t undo the tailpipe emissions rule, “our organizations are certainly prepared to challenge it in court,” the AFPM and API CEOs said in the joint statement that followed the announcement.

In attacking the rule, corporate interest groups like AFPM are following a well-trod path of fighting new climate regulations on every playing field they can find.

During the Trump administration, AFPM helped lead a successful effort to weaken previous EPA fuel efficiency standards. The group helped marshal Republican governors to advocate for the rollback, while also supporting Energy4US, a front group that encouraged Americans to flood the EPA with public comments, as DeSmog previously reported.

“One of the big advantages that oil industry lobbyists like AFPM have is money, and AFPM certainly isn’t afraid to use it,” Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at the investigative outlet Documented, told DeSmog in an email.

“Million dollar ad campaigns are an unfortunately common way for groups like AFPM to pressure legislators and regulators by raising the political temperature on an issue. Litigation slows things further, leading to years of delays in implementation.”

==

am 7 23

fossil fuel lobbyists are acting as "double agents" by also working for institutions that support progressive causes, including but not limited to fighting climate change, The Guardian's Oliver Milmanexclusively reported on Wednesday. GUK

Milman revealed that those individuals are at the "same time representing hundreds of liberal-run cities, universities, technology companies, and environmental groups" and that they "are also employed by a vast sweep of institutions, ranging from the city governments of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia; tech giants such as Apple and Google; more than 150 universities; some of the country's leading environmental groups – and even ski resorts seeing their snow melted by global heating."

Milman gathered his information from FMinus.org, a newly released database that catalogued "more than 1,500 state-level lobbyists who are playing both sides of the climate crisis by working for the fossil fuel industry at the same time they are working for people, communities, schools, businesses, nonprofit organizations and others being harmed by the crisis."

READ MORE: Monday was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth: report

FMinus.org founder James Browning told Milman that "many of these cities and counties face severe costs from climate change and yet elected officials are selling their residents out. It's extraordinary." Milman further noted that "the vast scale of the use of fossil fuel lobbyists by organizations that advocate for climate action underlines the deeply embedded influence of oil, gas, and coal interests, according to Timmons Roberts, an environmental sociologist at Brown University."

Milman quoted Roberts as having said that "the fossil fuel industry is very good at getting what it wants because they get the lobbyists best at playing the game" and that "they have the best staff, huge legal departments, and the ability to funnel dark money to lobbying and influence channels. "...roberts also stressed that FMinus.org "really makes it apparent that when you hire these insider lobbyists, you are

---

*an 5 23

*no lnx

Democratic and Republican political campaign experts, lobbyists, politicians, attorneys, and others are stunned and outraged after learning taxpayer-paid government officials in the administration of Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis have reportedly been soliciting donations for his presidential campaign, in violation of longstanding expectations of a firm wall between a political leader’s work as an elected public servant, and their political campaign machine.

“Whoever is telling these kids to do this has lost their damn mind,” a Florida Republican lobbyist told NBC News, which broke the bombshell story late Thursday night.

The solicitations from DeSantis government officials are in the form of personal text messages to Florida lobbyists, “a breach of traditional norms that has raised ethical and legal questions and left many here in the state capital shocked,” NBC News reports, adding that it was seen as “jaw-dropping.”

“It is walking a very close line to what is ethical and possibly legal,” a Florida lobbyist told NBC News. “It is state employees leveraging their official position to ask people whose livelihood depend on access to state government for money.”

READ MORE: ‘He’s Gonna Get Charged’: Experts Predict Obstruction and Espionage Act Charges for Trump Based on WaPo Report

“Using a bundle code makes it look like certain employees get credit with the campaign,” that same lobbyist added, calling it “very questionable.”

“If any of my clients had legislative staff sending out donation links, we would be having a hard conversation,” a Republican fundraiser who works on federal elections said.

NBC News says the “legality of the solicitations depends on a series of factors, including whether they were sent on state-owned phones, or if they were sent on state property.”

At the federal level, with the exception of the President and Vice President, elected and government officials are banned from soliciting donations or campaigning on government property, including in government buildings, such as Congress or the White House.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was formally admonished in March by the Senate Ethics Committee for violating ethics rules and standards by repeatedly soliciting campaign donations during an interview at the Capitol. It was not the first time he “directly solicited campaign contributions,” the Committee noted.

A longtime Florida election law attorney told NBC News, “At a minimum, even if they are sitting in their home at 9 p.m. using their personal phone and contacting lobbyists that they somehow magically met in their personal capacity and not through their role in the governor’s office, it still smells yucky.”

“There’s a misuse of public position issue here that is obvious to anyone paying attention,” they added.

READ MORE: ‘Manufactured MAGA Madness’: House Dems Slam GOP for ‘Running Out of Town’ to Trigger an ‘Economic Meltdown’

Pay-to-play, as some might call DeSantis’ actions, apparently has been part of the Florida GOP Governor’s playbook for years.

“Since assuming office in 2019,” The Tampa Bay Times reported this past October, “DeSantis has accepted roughly $3.3 million in campaign donations from about 250 people he selected for leadership roles,” referring to government jobs. The Times called it “a 75% increase in the number of donors appointed compared to former Gov. Rick Scott’s first term in office, and over 10 times the amount of money.”

The Miami Herald at the time spoke with Kedric Payne, vice president and general counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, who noted appointing donors is a typical practice.

“The public perceives this to be pay to play,” Payne told The Herald. “It’s perceived to be a contribution given with a wink and a nod to get the appointment.”

Orlando Sentinel Capital bureau reporter Jeffrey Schweers calls the NBC report “huge,” and says “the implications are staggering.”

Matt Dixon, the NBC News reporter and co-author of the bombshell report, observed on Twitter, “The $117b state budget and several bills remain on DeSantis desk.”

“That’s a lot of leverage, and those who got the texts are feeling pressure,” he noted. “Beyond that, it’s just so drastically beyond the norm. Taxpayer funded staff asking lobbyists for political $ isn’t how it usually works.”

Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor at the right-wing National Review, tweeted, “Frankly, I didn’t know this was a matter of ‘norms’; I thought it was a matter of law. Something to keep an eye on.”

Former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s fraud division, Andrew Warren, currently a Florida state attorney who was suspended by DeSantis, had strong words in response to NBC’s reporting.

“Florida government officials on taxpayer salaries are raising money for DeSantis campaign from companies doing business with his administration. This is corruption—plain & simple. But what else should we expect from a Governor who flaunts the rule of law?”

Warren is challenging DeSantis’ suspension in court.

READ MORE: DeSantis Tells Evangelicals He Wants to ‘Improve’ Supreme Court So Justices Reflect ‘Gold Standard’ of Clarence Thomas

Rick Wilson, the well-known political strategist and now-former Republican who has worked in politics since 1988, blasted DeSantis.

“The stories of @RonDeSantis GOVERNMENT staff…not campaign, GOVERNMENT staff soliciting Florida lobbyists for money for his Presidential campaign should draw the immediate attention of the Department of Justice,” he tweeted Friday morning. “This is Putinesque kleptocracy.”

“Here’s why the quid pro quo is so outrageous,” he noted. “DeSantis has yet to sign the state budget.”

Indeed, NBC News “spoke with 10 Republican lobbyists in Florida, all of whom said they couldn’t remember being solicited for donations so overtly by administration officials — especially at a time when the governor still has to act on the state budget.”

“That process that involves DeSantis using his line-item veto pen to slash funding for projects that the same lobbyists whom they are asking for political cash have a professional stake in. Most of the lobbyists said they felt pressure to give to the governor’s campaign.”

Florida Democratic Party chair Nikki Fried, who ran in the 2022 gubernatorial primary but lost to Charlie Crist, responded to Wilson on Twitter, charging, “This is also how he [DeSantis] strong armed the endorsement of members of the legislature.”

“It’s not just the lobbyists they’re extorting,” Democratic former state lawmaker Carlos Guillermo Smith, a current state senate candidate, alleged via Twitter. “Ron DeSantis got 99 Florida Republican lawmakers to sign endorsement agreements before budget vetoes were announced. Using fear, intimidation, and threats of retribution is all they know how to do.”

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'He was dead': Trump swipes at 'very disloyal' DeSantis at golf tournament ›

'Persistent affordability crisis': How DeSantis’ plan to sell his 'Florida blueprint' could backfire ›

'A clown show': Steve Bannon lambastes DeSantis’ 'historic screwup' of a campaign launch ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Ron DeSantis will launch his presidential bid with Elon Musk on ... ›

---

ref

guk

exclusive: new database shows 1,500 US lobbyists working for fossil-fuel firms while representing universities and green groups

guardian.org

Oliver Milman

@olliemilman

Wed 5 Jul 2023

More than 1,500 lobbyists in the US are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while at the same time representing hundreds of liberal-run cities, universities, technology companies and environmental groups that say they are tackling the climate crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

Lobbyists for oil, gas and coal interests are also employed by a vast sweep of institutions, ranging from the city governments of Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia; tech giants such as Apple and Google; more than 150 universities; some of the country’s leading environmental groups – and even ski resorts seeing their snow melted by global heating.

The breadth of fossil fuel lobbyists’ work for other clients is captured in a new database of their lobbying interests which was published online on Wednesday.

State Farm stopped insuring California homes due to climate risks. But it shares lobbyists with big oil

Read more

It shows the reach of state-level fossil fuel lobbyists into almost every aspect of American life, spanning local governments, large corporations, cultural institutions such as museums and film festivals, and advocacy groups, grouping together clients with starkly contradictory aims.

For instance, State Farm, the insurance company that announced in May it would halt new homeowner policies in California due to the “catastrophic” risk of wildfires worsened by the climate crisis, employs lobbyists that also advocate for fossil fuel interests to lawmakers in 18 states.

Meanwhile, Baltimore, which is suing big oil firms for their role in causing climate-related damages, has shared a lobbyist with ExxonMobil, one of the named defendants in the case. Syracuse University, a pioneer in the fossil fuel divestment movement, has a lobbyist with 14 separate oil and gas clients.

When you hire these insider lobbyists, you are basically working with double agents. They are guns for hire

Timmons Roberts of Brown University

“It’s incredible that this has gone under the radar for so long, as these lobbyists help the fossil fuel industry wield extraordinary power,” said James Browning, a former Common Cause lobbyist who put together the database for a new venture called F Minus. “Many of these cities and counties face severe costs from climate change and yet elected officials are selling their residents out. It’s extraordinary.

“The worst thing about hiring these lobbyists is that it legitimizes the fossil fuel industry,” Browning added. “They can cloak their radical agenda in respectability when their lobbyists also have clients in the arts, or city government, or with conservation groups. It normalizes something that is very dangerous.”

The searchable database, created by compiling the public disclosure records of lobbyists up to 2022 reveals:

Some of the most progressive-minded cities in the US employ fossil fuel lobbyists. Chicago shares a lobbyist with BP. Philadelphia’s lobbyist also works for the Koch Industries network. Los Angeles has a lobbyist contracted to the gas plant firm Tenaska. Even cities that are suing fossil fuel companies for climate damages, such as Baltimore, have fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists.

Collage of big tech companies

Big tech vows to fight climate crisis but employs fossil fuel-linked lobbyists

Read more

Environmental groups that push for action on climate change also, incongruously, use lobbyists employed by the fossil fuel industry. The Environmental Defense Fund shares lobbyists with ExxonMobil, Calpine and Duke Energy, all major gas producers. A lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund also works on behalf of the mining company BHP.

Large tech companies have repeatedly touted their climate credentials but many also use fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists. Amazon employs fossil fuel lobbyists in 27 states. Apple shares a lobbyist with the Koch network. Microsoft’s lobbyist also lobbies on behalf of Exxon. Google has a lobbyist who has seven different fossil fuel companies as clients.

More than 150 universities have ties to lobbyists who also push the interests of fossil fuel companies. These include colleges that have vowed to divest from fossil fuels under pressure from students concerned about the climate crisis, such asCalifornia State University, the University of Washington, Johns Hopkins University and Syracuse University. Scores of school districts, from Washington state to Florida, have lobbyists who also work for fossil fuel interests.

A constellation of cultural and recreational bodies also use fossil fuel lobbyists, despite in many cases calling for action on the climate crisis. The New Museum in New York City, the Los Angeles County Museumof Art and the Sundance Film Institute in Utah all share lobbyists with fossil fuel interests, as does the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and the Florida Aquarium. Even top ski resorts such as Jackson Hole and Vail, which face the prospect of dwindling snow on slopes due to rising temperatures, use fossil fuel lobbyists.

Cities, companies, universities and green groups that use fossil fuel-linked lobbyists said this work didn’t conflict with their own climate goals and in some cases was even beneficial. “It is common for lobbyists to work for a variety of clients,” said a spokesperson for the University of Washington.

A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art said it had retained a lobbyist on the F Minus database “for a period during the pandemic … We are not currently working with the company.”

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art said it no longer works with the lobbying company that F Minus linked to fossil fuel interests. Photograph: robertharding/Alamy

A spokesperson for the Environmental Defense Fund said that working for big oil is “not, in itself, an automatic disqualification. In some cases it can actually help us find productive alignment in unexpected places.” Microsoft said despite its lobbying arrangements there is “no ambiguity or doubt about Microsoft’s commitment to the aggressive steps needed to address the world’s carbon crisis”.

But the vast scale of the use of fossil fuel lobbyists by organizations that advocate for climate action underlines the deeply embedded influence of oil, gas and coal interests, according to Timmons Roberts, an environmental sociologist at Brown University.

“The fossil fuel industry is very good at getting what it wants because they get the lobbyists best at playing the game,” Roberts said. “They have the best staff, huge legal departments, and the ability to funnel dark money to lobbying and influence channels.

“This database really makes it apparent that when you hire these insider lobbyists, you are basically working with double agents. They are guns for hire. The information you share with them is probably going to the opposition.”

Roberts said that climate-concerned organizations may get a “short term” benefit by gaining access to politicians close to the fossil fuel lobbyists they use but that the enduring impact is to simply reinforce the status of polluting industries. “It would make a big difference if all of these institutions cut all ties with fossil fuel lobbyists, even if they lose some access to insider decisions,” he said. “It would be taking one more step to removing the social license from an industry that’s making the planet uninhabitable.”

Nearly all states require lobbyists to register and submit periodic disclosure reports, and lobbyists tend not to advocate for both sides of the same piece of legislation. Beyond that, the laws around lobbying are scant. There is no bar to lobbyists working for clients with seemingly diametrically opposing aims, and there are few guardrails to ensure sensitive information isn’t shared with the other side.

This has led to lobbyists with client lists that are jarring in their juxtapositions. Hinman Straub, a New York-based advisory firm, lobbies on behalf of Koch Industries, known for its history of climate denial and muscular efforts to block action to cut emissions, as well as Bard College, one of the most liberal institutions in the US.

Seth McKeel, a former Republican state legislator in Florida, is lobbyist to both Apple, which has vowed to completely decarbonize its supply chain by 2030, and Kinder Morgan, which has more than 140 oil and gas terminals.

Syracuse University’s lobbyist, the Brown & Weinraub outfit, also has 14 fossil fuel clients, including Koch Industries companies, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, a situation that Alex Scrivner, a Syracuse PhD student and campus climate advocate, described as “disheartening”. The Koch Industries network itself shares lobbyists with a broad range of institutions, from the Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre to Google.

The practice of political lobbying has grown significantly since the 1970s, with the fossil fuel industry among the most prolific users of paid operatives to help shape favourable government policies. A study released in May found that not only is the industry more likely to lobby than others, its lobbying expenditures have jumped when faced with potential climate-linked threats to its business model.

This morass of fossil fuel lobbying now touches all flavours of political persuasion. Lobbying contracts can involve a range of different tasks that do not necessarily directly clash with the stated aims of another client, and some environmental groups feel that having fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists can open up pathways to Republican lawmakers who might otherwise not be amenable to them.

Microsoft says there’s ‘no ambiguity or doubt’ about its climate commitment despite its lobbying arrangements. Photograph: Christophe Morin/IP3/Getty Images

Denis Dison, director of communications for the National Resources Defense Council Action Fund, said the environmental group “as a rule” doesn’t use people who also work with the fossil fuel industry. But he added that “at times we retain vendors that specialize in engagement that can help build support for climate and equity progress across both sides of the aisle”.

Browning said his advice would be to avoid “cynical calculations”. He said: “We got into this mess on climate by groups seeking short-term wins but empowering the fossil fuel industry and giving them credibility.” State capitols can act as a sort of “alternate reality” where existential issues like the climate crisis are overshadowed by the desire to cultivate alliances and bolster influence, he added.

“People just assume there is no alternative to the status quo, but it’s time to take a side. It’s all about who is in the room when decisions are made, and the only way to force change is to get these fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists out of the room.”

Lobbyists, like lawyers, aren’t required to hold the same worldview as their clients, according to Sarah Bryner, director of research at OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks lobbying. “But you could see it would be problematic to represent clients with radically opposed views to other clients,” she said.

“The money thing matters, too. These environmental groups, and even cities, can’t pay lobbyists as much as huge multinational fossil fuel companies can, so there is an imbalance there. Loyalties would be split.” You shouldn’t be funding the person who is poisoning you

Former Culver City, California, mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells

Meghan Sahli-Wells saw the pressure exerted by fossil fuel lobbying first-hand while she was mayor of Culver City, California, where she spearheaded a move to ban oil drilling near homes and schools. Culver City, part of Los Angeles county, overlaps with the Inglewood oilfield, and the close proximity of oilwells to residences has been blamed for worsening health problems, such as asthma, as well as fueling the climate crisis.

“It takes so much community effort and political lift to pass policies and then these lobbying firms come in and try to undo them overnight,” said Sahli-Wells, who ended her second mayoral term in 2020. Oil and gas interests, which spent $34m across California lobbying lawmakers and state agencies last year, mobilised against the ban, arguing it would be economically harmful and cause gasoline prices to spike.

“There was just a huge push from the fossil fuel industry,” Sahli-Wells said. “It’s not a good look to be funding lobbyists for fossil fuels, especially with public money.

“I hope that many people just don’t know they share lobbyists with fossil fuel companies and that this database will bring transparency and allow leaders to better vet these companies,” she added. “You shouldn’t be funding the person who is poisoning you.” zzz no lnx

Bankers cheer as GOP senator dismisses calls for regulations after SVB collapse

Jake Johnson and Common Dreams March 22, 2023

Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana garnered applause from a room full of bankers on Tuesday after he dismissed calls for tougher regulations following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.

"There are a lot of talking heads out there who are saying that the solution is more regulation, and I strongly disagree," Daines said in remarks to the American Bankers Association's Washington Summit, an annual gathering of bank CEOs and other top executives.

The Montana Republican went on to defend a 2018 law that progressive lawmakers and experts have said is at least partly responsible for the recent bank failures. That measure, known as S.2155, weakened post-financial crisis regulations for banks with between $50 billion and $250 billion in assets, subjecting firms such as SVB—which lobbied for the changes—to less stringent oversight and paving the way for more risk-taking and industry consolidation.

Daines, a member of the Senate Banking Committee and a major recipient of securities industry donations, called the stricter liquidity requirements and other rules gutted by the 2018 law "overreaching regulations" and claimed that efforts to revive the safeguards are creating "more worry" in the banking sector.

"This was not the cause of this failure," Daines said of S.2155, which former President Donald Trump signed into law after it passed with bipartisan support.

Watch the senator's remarks, which begin at the 1:32:04 mark:

It's unsurprising that Daines' defense of S.2155 was received favorably by a gathering of the American Bankers Association, which was one of many industry groups that lobbied aggressively for the measure.

"The lobbyists were everywhere. You couldn't throw an elbow without running into one," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who vocally opposed S.2155, told reporters last week.

Warren and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) have introduced legislation that would repeal a critical section of the 2018 law.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday that in the hours before Congress approved the measure, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)—one of the legislation's top Democratic supporters—"huddled with executives from Bank of America, Citigroup, Discover, and Wells Fargo, who were there on behalf of the American Bankers Association."

:{"The American Bankers Association, which helped lead the push, later paid $125,000 for an ad campaign thanking Tester for his role in the bill's passage," the Associated Press noted.

The banking group's PAC spent more than $2.6 million on campaign contributions during the 2018 election cycle, with more than 76% of the donations going to Republicans, according to OpenSecrets.}:

Daines, who won reelection in 2020, received $10,000 from the American Bankers Association PAC during that year's campaign.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Here are 4 red states where Joe Biden is shockingly competitive with Trump ›

Election Digest: Montana's governor may run against GOP senator in a boon to Democrats ›

Busted: GOP canvasser caught on surveillance video removing Democratic yard signs ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Montana senator endorses Marco Rubio - POLITICO ›

How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding - The ... ›

===

[[ 3 23

intercept

silicon Valley Bank Used Former McCarthy Staffers to Weaken Regulations, Lobby FDIC

Ken Klippenstein

Two senior aides to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy were among the top lobbyists for the bank at the center of a new financial crisis.

===

eurasia rev

Before the financial collapse come the aggressive anti-regulation lobbyists.  These are often of the same ilk: loathing anything resembling oversight, restriction, reporting and monitoring.  They are incarnations of the frontier, symbolically toting guns and slaying the natives, seeking wealth beyond paper jottings, compliance and bureaucratic tedium.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), for a period of time the preferred bank for start-ups, is the bitter fruit of that harvest.  Three days prior to the second-largest failure of a US financial institution since the implosion of Washington Mutual (Wamu) in 2008, lobbyists for the banking sector had reason to gloat.  They had the ears of a number of GOP lawmakers and were pressing the case that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had little reason to sharpen regulations in the industry.

As a matter of fact, the converse case was put: the financial environment was proving too stringent, and needed easing up.  This effort built on gains made during the Trump administration, which saw the passing of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.  Then House majority leader Kevin McCarthy was particularly keen on winding back elements of the Dodd-Frank banking measuresintroduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.  In 2018, he got much of what he wished for.

Lobbyists for SVB were particularly aggressive in that endeavour, and even went so far as to seek exemptions from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the body responsible for insuring bank deposits in times of crisis and institutional oversight.  Two former staffers for McCarthy so happen to be registered lobbyists for SVB, a fact that shows how the US revolving door between politics and business continues to whirr at some speed.  The SVB lobby list also includes figures who found employment under former President Bill Clinton, former Senator Mike Enzi (R-My), former Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and former Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), just to name a few.

The crisis duly came. On March 9, startups and venture capitalists made a run on SVB as its share price took a tumble.  SVB had sold its available-for-sale (AFS) portfolio for US$21 billion at a US$1.8 billion loss.  In a patch-up, capital raising response, SVB then announced that it would sell US$2.25 billion in new shares.

By the next day, the FDIC had placed SVB into receivership.  The corporation promised that insured depositors would have access to their insured deposits on March 13; uninsured depositors would have to wait a bit longer, expecting an “advance within the next week.”  But given that 90% of the bank’s deposits exceeded the amount guaranteed by the FDIC, the prospects for adequate recovery proved uncertain, at least till the FDIC, Federal Reserve and US Treasury promised protection for them.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo proved rather green in suggesting that the financial system, as things stood, would be resilient enough to hold off any contagion.  “Federal regulators are paying attention to this particular financial institution,” he told CNN, “and when we think about the broader financial system, we’re very confident in the ability and the resilience of the system.”

This is bound to be misplaced.  It’s certainly not the view held byformer FDIC head, Sheila Blair,who argues that there are other banks in the system with large amounts of uninsured deposits and unrealised losses.  “These banks that have large amounts of institutional uninsured money … that’s going to be hot money that runs if there’s a sign of trouble.”

David Sacks of Craft Ventures is also of the view that immediate intervention at the government level was required.  “Where is Powell?” he wondered.  “Where is [US Secretary of the Treasury Janet] Yellen?  Stop this crisis NOW.”  SVB, he proposed, should be placed with a top four bank. “Do this before Monday open or there will be contagion and the crisis will spread.”

Questions are being asked whether the anti-regulatory bug has gotten to the various authorities and agencies. Mike Novogratz, founder of Galaxy Digital, pondered whether all banks were now being treated like hedge funds.  “Seems like a policy mistake.”

Economists such as Peter Schiff are even more damning, claiming that the entire US banking sector is set for a cathartic clean-up that will be greater than that following 2008.  US banks were holding “long-term paper at extremely low interest rates.  They can’t compete with short-term Treasuries.”  In such an environment, depositors, in the pursuit of higher yields, would initiate mass withdrawals, resulting in a tidal wave of bank collapses.

Blame for the SVB debacle has been extensive. “This was a hysteria-induced bank run caused by VCs [venture capitalists],” opined Ryan Falvey, a fintech investor based at Restive Ventures.  “This is going to be remembered as one of the ultimate cases of an industry cutting off its nose to spite its face.”

The oversight advocates are bound to agree.  Dennis Kelleher, CEO of the non-profit Better Markets, is certainly one.  “SVB’s stunningly quick collapse should put an end to the nonstop attempts by banks, lobbyists and their political allies to weaken capital and other financial regulations that protect depositors, consumers, investors and financial stability.”

This is likely to prove to be a flight of fancy.  The banking lobbyists have destructive form and staying power.  In 2019, the International Monetary Fund published a working paper noting that bank lobbying, in general, produced “regulatory capture, which lessens the support for tighter rules and enforcement.  This, in turn, allows riskier practices and worse economic outcomes.”

As the great financial crisis showed, financial regulation is often the antidote to banditry.  The pillaging and frontier types will always resist such tendencies. Again, they have been found wanting, and again, the harmful consequences of their ideas are going to prove deep and extensive.

lever

Eight years before the second-largest bank failure in American history occurred this week, the bank’s president personally pressed Congress to reduce scrutiny of his financial institution, citing the “low risk profile of our activities and business model,” according to federal records reviewed by The Lever.

Three years later — after the bank spent more than half a million dollars on federal lobbying — lawmakers obliged.

On Friday, California regulators shut down the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), a top lender to venture capital firms and tech startups, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took it over, following a bank run by its customers. The bank reportedly did not have a chief risk officer in the months leading up to the collapse, while more than 90 percent of its deposits were not insured.

in 2015, SVB President Greg Becker submitted a statement to a Senate panel pushing legislators to exempt more banks — including his own — from new regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Despite warnings from some senators, Becker’s lobbying effort was ultimately successful.

Touting “SVB’s deep understanding of the markets it serves,our strong risk management practices,” Becker argued that his bank would soon reach $50 billion in assets, which under the law would trigger “enhanced prudential standards,” including more stringent regulations, stress tests, and capital requirements for his and other similarly sized banks.

Becker insisted that $250 billion was a more appropriate threshold.

“Without such changes, SVB likely will need to divert significant resources from providing financing to job-creating companies in the innovation economy to complying with enhanced prudential standards and other requirements,” wrote Becker, who**reportedly**sold $3.6 million of his own stock two weeks ago, in the lead-up to the bank’s collapse. “Given the low risk profile of our activities and business model, such a result would stifle our ability to provide credit to our clients without any meaningful corresponding reduction in risk.”

Two months later, SVB added former Obama Treasury Department official Mary Miller to its board, noting she had previously helped oversee “financial regulatory reforms.”

Around that time, federal disclosure records show the bank was lobbying lawmakers on “financial regulatory reform” and the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2015 — a bill that was the precursor to legislation ultimately signed by President Donald Trump that increased the regulatory threshold for stronger stress tests to $250 billion.

Trump signed the bill despite a report from Democrats on Congress’ Joint Economic Committee warning that under the new law, SVB and other banks of its size “would no longer be subject to nearly any enhanced regulations.”

The bill was supported in the Senate by 50 Republicans and 17 Democrats, including Virginia Sen. Mark Warner (D), for whom Becker held a fundraiser at his Menlo Park, California, home in 2016, according to an invite obtained by The Sunlight Foundation and OpenSecrets. The bank’s political action committee also donated a total of $10,000 to Warner’s campaigns in the 2016 and 2018 election cycles.

In 2019, when the Federal Reserve proposed regulations implementing the deregulatory law, financial watchdogs warned that its regulations on Category IV institutions — as SVB was later classified due to its size and other risk factors — were far too weak.

“The proposal to significantly weaken enhanced prudential standards for Category IV firms could be disastrous,” Better Markets, a nonprofit advocating for stricter financial regulations, wrote in a comment on the Federal Reserve’s proposal. “Moreover, these are not small or insignificant firms. Recall that the smallest among this class of banks is over twice the size of the $50 billion dollar banks that automatically required enhanced prudential regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act as originally enacted.”

The final rule guaranteed that Category IV institutions are “not required to conduct and publicly report the results of a company-run stress test” and “reduces the required minimum frequency of liquidity stress tests and granularity of certain liquidity risk-management requirements,” according to Federal Reserve officials at the time.

In 2021, SVB passed the threshold of $100 billion under management, triggering some additional scrutiny as a Category IV bank but remaining exempt from the more frequent and detailed analyses that regulators perform to determine whether banks above $250 billion of assets have sufficient capital to withstand a crisis.

a press release Friday from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation noted that as of December 2022, SVB had $209 billion in assets under management — keeping it below the $250 billion threshold for which the bank had lobbied.

SVB is the biggest bank to collapse since Washington Mutual failed in 2008 during the financial crisis, and the second-biggest bank failure in U.S. history.

Prior to Becker’s 2015 push, SVB had pressed Federal Reserve officials to limit regulatory scrutiny of mid-sized banks, arguing that “we are very concerned that the regulatory requirements for covered companies will end up trickling down to smaller financial institutions.”

In 2019, Becker was elected to serve on the board of directors at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Becker left the board on Friday.

===

===

bloomberg

*:{

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he’s been in touch with the Biden administration and is hopeful that US officials will make an announcement on Sunday to address the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. }:*

“Well, I have talked with the administration, from Jay Powell and Janet Yellen,” McCarthy said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” “They do have the tools to handle the current situation, they do know the seriousness of this and they are working to try to come forward with some announcement before the markets open.”

“I’m hopeful that something can be announced today to move forward,” the California Republican said. “Silicon Valley Bank has a lot of assets. It’s just where the capital is currently at. So it is attractive for someone to want to purchase it. It’s just the timeline of where to move forward.”

McCarthy didn’t specify the nature of any announcement that regulators might be preparing.

==

say it ain't so barney; mccarthy staffers lobby?

svb signature silvergate crypto fail

~ Eliz, manchin sinema trump regs water down fair to sm bank BS

https://www.alternet.org/dodd-frank/

https://theintercept.com/2023/02/15/congress-bank-lobbying/

lee fang

DURING THE STATE of the Union last week, President Joe Biden asked Congress to pass legislation cracking down on hidden and often predatory fees charged by banks in the form of overdraft and late penalties, adding heft to regulatory action launched by his administration last year.

But the legislation may not stand much of a chance with a Republican House, where the Financial Services Committee, which oversees banking policy, is now chaired by Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., and staffed by former lobbyists.

Over the last few weeks, McHenry’s hires to run the committee are mostly former lobbyists who served the very banks, lenders, and brokerages seeking to combat Biden regulations. Staffers often play a pivotal role in determining the strategy and policy behind any change in the law.

larry Seyfried, just months ago, worked as a registered lobbyist and vice president of congressional relations at the American Bankers Association, the bank trade group that is leading the charge against Biden’s crackdown on junk fees. Seyfried was hired by McHenry as the director of member services and coalitions for the House Financial Services Committee.

The American Bankers Association, earlier this week threatened to file a lawsuit to stop the Biden administration from capping certain bank fees at $8 each, claiming such regulations would increase borrowing costs and force banks to cut services to certain types of customers.McHenry, in turn, has threatened to use his new perch on the committee to investigate the primary regulatory agencies charged with enforcing the fee mandate, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Several GOP lawmakers on the committee have proposed legislation to rein in the CFPB’s authority.

The committee also recently hired Will Anderson, a former lobbyist for the Business Roundtable, a trade group that represents Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and other large financial corporations. Anderson will serve as the staff director for the subcommittee on capital markets, which oversees the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies.

Last year, disclosures show Anderson lobbied Congress and the SEC on behalf of the Business Roundtable on a variety of financial regulations. Now he will work from the inside.

l

Other committee staffers have similar potential conflicts of interest. Kathleen Palmer, a GOP congressional staffer for the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, is a former lobbyist for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Matt Hoffmann, the staff director of the committee for McHenry, previously worked as a lobbyist for the BGR Group, a large firm with many clients with interests directly impacted by the committee, including Credit Suisse Group and MetLife.

The so-called reverse revolving door, in which lobbyists for highly regulated interest groups temporarily take jobs in government with influence or oversight over policy impacting their former employers, is a vexing issue.

Related

As the Revolving Door Spins, Lobbyists Hired for Top Jobs in Congress Yet Again

Policymakers need expertise to devise thoughtful policy, and former lobbyists are often well equipped to understand highly technical issues for specialized industries. David Hanke, the recently hired director of the new select committee to probe competition between the U.S. and China, for instance, previously worked as an attorney advising on semiconductor issues, a key concern shaping U.S.-China tensions. He was also registered to lobby.

But the burrowing of corporate lobbyists deep inside powerful roles in the congressional and federal bureaucracy also presents the potential for entrenched corruption.

The advantages for burrowing are so high that many corporations with a stake in government policy write the incentives into employment contracts. Banks and defense contractors extend special bonuses as a reward for executives to leave and enter government. In public service, they are well positioned to reward their former corporate employers. After a stint in government, most return to the private sector.

For example, Northrop Grumman, the defense giant, paid out bonuses to executives who went on to work as congressional staff. One former Northrop Grumman lobbyist received up to $450,000 in bonus and incentive pay as he left the firm to work on the committee that oversees Pentagon policy. Former Northrop Grumman executives worked to advocate for higher military spending and for lawmakers who specifically encouraged spending on Northrop Grumman-built weapons systems, including the RQ-4 Global Hawk drone.

Newly hired congressional staff across the aisle present other potential conflicts of interest. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., the chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, recently announced the lead staffer on the committee will be Courtney Taylor, who previously worked as senior vice president at the lobbying firm ML Strategies. Disclosures show Taylor has previously lobbied for a range of clients, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Shell, and the American Wood Council, a trade group for the wood products industry.

In Congress, the most important staffer for each member is the chief of staff, who oversees each lawmaker’s operations. Tucker Knott, the new chief of staff to Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., previously worked as a lobbyist for Pfizer. Hank Dixon, the chief of staff to newly elected Rep. Sydney Kamlager, D-Calif., comes to the job after working as vice president of corporate affairs at oil firm Talisman Energy and before that, as a D.C. lawyer for Shell. Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., recently hired Tim Costa as his chief of staff. Costa previously worked as a lobbyist at the firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC for several health care clients, including Walgreens.

As Truthout reported, several former fossil fuel lobbyists have been hired for key committees overseeing energy and land use policy. Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., who controls the gavel of the Natural Resources Committee, hired a former lobbyist for Taylor Energy, the Louisiana firm responsible for an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Minn., also a member of the same committee, hired Shawn Rusterholz, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for the oil majors such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp  ]]

===

===

3 23 an

rail industry spent $654 million on federal lobbying over past 20 years: analysis

https://www.alternet.org/environment/railroad/

===

https://www.desmog.com/2023/02/21/oreskes-conway-the-big-myth-free-market-capitalism-climate-change-mont-pelerin-society/

science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, authors of the classic 2010 book :{Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, have released a new book placing that doubt machine into a longer arc of U.S. business and political history.

:{The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: explores an even more ambitious history dating from the dawn of the 20th century to the present day.

The book documents how today’s prevailing anti-regulatory and anti-government postures that deride Big Government and cheer for Big Business did not arise simply from grassroots demands. Instead, they arose from well-funded industry campaigns creating what Oreskes and Conway have called a manufactured consensus “quasi-religious belief” in deregulated markets and an accompanying diehard opposition to governmental solutions to public policy problems.

Fighting Public Utilities, Child Labor Laws

One of the first campaigns in that spirit occurred within the electricity utility industry via an organization which eventually became known as the Edison Electric Institute.

What is now colloquially calledEEI, was launched in 1885 as the National Electric Light Association, or NELA. At the time, it “represented more than five hundred of the largest privately owned electrical utilities, accounting for more than 90 percent of U.S. kilowatt output,” according to the book.

In the 1920s, according to Oreskes and Conway, “electricity industry leaders organized one of the largest propaganda campaigns in the history of the United States.” The campaign aimed to persuade the public thatmunicipal-owned electricity was a bad thing, advocating instead for investor-owned utilities. In the end, though, it resulted in higher rates for homeowners and small businesses and bigger profits for company owners and their bankrollers.

The initially unpopular campaign framed its activities under the guise of freedom and market efficiency. NELA’s influence operation — involving rewriting K-12 and university textbooks, courting and funding industry-friendly professors, utilizing astroturf campaigns, deploying sophisticated lobbying techniques to facilitate regulatory and legislative capture, and other deceptive practices — resembles much of the fossil fuel industry’s political pressure that DeSmog has covered and uncovered week-in and week-out for over a decade and a half.

At the time, it was the first of its kind industrial-scale full-court press, and it provided a roadmap for other corporate hegemons in subsequent decades. And NELA’s goal went far beyond merely winning a PR campaign, Oreskes and Conway conclude; it had much deeper ideological underpinnings.

“[U]nlike conventional PR, the aim was not simply to create a positive impression of a particular business or even of the whole industry,” they write. “Rather, the goal—expressed outright in numerous documents—was to change the way Americans thought about private property, capitalism, and regulation” altogether.

Core to NELA’s campaign, Oreskes and Conway wrote, was the idea “that free-market capitalism was the embodiment of freedom, writ large, and that any restriction on the freedom of any business would put us on a slippery slope to tyranny.”

Private ownership of the electricity industry was, up until then, relatively rare in the United States and even more so throughout the industrializing world. But as of 2017, 72 percentof U.S. electricity customers got their power from investor-owned utilities. NELA’s campaign, in other words, changed history as we know it.

Today, its successor EEI and its member companies continue to wage deceptive PR campaigns to fight renewable energy and bolster the continued consumption of fossil fuels.

The NELA campaign’s legacy, however, goes far beyond its sector alone, according to Oreskes and Conway. “Perhaps most importantly, NELA pioneered a strategy of insisting that these claims were true, regardless of the facts,” they wrote.

Broadening their view beyond the fossil fuel industry, Oreskes and Conway also detail how the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) propelled similar efforts across other industries during the same era. Like EEI, fast-forwarding to the present-day, NAM has served as a key node of climate denialism. 

But in its earliest days,NAM maintained a different sinister focus, according to The Big Myth: advocating against child labor laws amid what the authors described as a “pandemic” of workplace deaths both among young workers and the adult workforce.The sheer volume of such deaths served as one of the first major wakeup calls in the need for a more active regulatory state, the book maps out.

In making its case for child labor and against regulations protecting children, NAM espoused “that the federal government had no business interfering in business” and called such a notion “socialistic in its origin, philosophy and associations.”

Libertarian Fringe to (Neo)Liberal Mainstream

While both NELA and NAM laid the groundwork for a paradigm that’s alive and well today, their ideas were not adopted globally until the formation of theMont Pelerin Society,a group created in 1947 that like EEI and NAM has received close scrutiny from DeSmog for years. Oreskes and Conway devote a whole chapter of The Big Myth to Mont Pelerin.

Like NELA and NAM, Mont Pelerin’s roots lay in anti-regulatory and business-funded ideology. But unlike them, Mont Pelerin came out of academia and via professors committed to the now globally pervasive neoliberal ideology they created. Mont Pelerin inspired similar groups that are, like it, still active today, such as the Koch Industries-funded Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University and the University of Chicago’s free market-oriented Economics Department.

Oreskes and Conway point to a legion of like-minded groups arising by the 1970s, riding the momentum of an academic community devoted to neoliberal ideology, and reacting to the gains made in environmental protection and other areas. Formation of these groups accelerated after the metaphorical call-to-arms made in a memo written to theU.S. Chamber of Commerce by the then-tobacco industry attorney and soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell.

Known today as the Powell Memo, the 1972 letter called for Big Business to undergo “careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”

The Powell Memo, Oreskes and Conway concluded, spearheaded free market fundamentalist groups such as the Cato Institute, Koch Family Foundations, Scaife Family Foundations, Olin Foundation, Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society, among others. All of these entities, and the groups they fund or work alongside in coalitions, remain powerful forces within U.S. and global politics.

The Big Myth further highlights how those think tanks and companies also played a key role in defeating the 2009 and 2010 congressional push, led by then-President Barack Obama, to pass a federal, market-oriented climate bill known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act.[waxman markey]  Critics would charge that the policy approach taken in the bill, emblematically, embodies the very “market fundamentalist” ethos reigning over U.S. politics for the past 100-plus years.

During the congressional debate over a bill that would haveenshrined the policy lever of cap-and-trade, the Koch-funded Tea Party network also ascended[vid]

previous congressional pushes in the 2000s for what was ultimately a business-friendly climate policy, had enjoyed bipartisan support. But The Big Myth explains how as the Tea Party network took flight, Republican Party support for the climate bill — and broader climate action — eroded to a near-zero level. It has mostly remained there since.

At the same time, the reality of climate change had and has continued to become all the more clear. That reality though, Oreskes and Conway wrote, clashes with the religion of market fundamentalism.

“[H]ad the market fundamentalists spent so much time defending the magic of the market-place that they simply couldn’t accept market failure on a global scale?” the authors asked of the legion of climate-change deniers who helped to kill the bill. “To accept the enormity of what climate change portended for civilization was to accept that capitalism, as practiced, was undermining the very prosperity it was supposed to deliver. And not just in some distant future, but now.”

Although this “quasi-religious belief” in the power of the market holds the greatest sway with conservatives, Oreskes and Conway argue that belief in the “magic of the marketplace” has become an intoxicating ideology withinliberal circles too, including within climate policy debates.

“Even in supposedly liberal enclaves like Cambridge, Massachusetts,” where Oreskes teaches at Harvard, “many people think climate change will be best addressed by technological innovation in the marketplace,” the co-authors surmise, perhaps in alluding to the prototypical industry-friendly policies pushed by former Obama Administration U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz — a professor at the nearby Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“The rise of right-wing think tanks helped spread the pro-market, antigovernment gospel across the country and insert what had been decidedly niche views into the mainstream,” the authors explained of the ideology’s spread. Other scholars have referred to this as the “force field” effect, moving the gravitational pull of what’s possible within U.S. politics further and further toward right-wing, corporate-created policy solutions.

The ideological roots of anti-democracy, anti-environmental, and anti-regulatory campaigning explored in The Big Myth also serve as the heart and soul of the book :{Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, written by DeSmog co-founders James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore.

If you have learned from DeSmog’s reporting shedding light on the climate change denial machine, you’ll love The Big Myth, an excerpt from which follows below. The book is a must-read for all students of the sordid history of public relations and governmental capture.

Go grab a copy and checkout some recent interviews on the book, as well, for further background. A video of Professor Oreskes discussing the book can also be seen below.

Excerpt from The Big Myth

In the 1990s, as capitalism was being declared triumphant in many quarters, scientists had proved that man-made climate change was under way.1 Climate change was textbook market failure. It arose from everyday economic activity— using fossil fuels—but was about to impose a huge external cost, inundating major coastal cities around the globe, making hurricanes and cyclones even more deadly than they already were, and dislocating tens or even hundreds of millions of people. It was also textbook environmental injustice, as poor people would almost certainly bear the brunt of a problem created by the rich.

But it also had a textbook answer: putting a price on carbon. Economists called this solution a “Pigouvian tax”—after the Cambridge economist Arthur Pigou, who in the early twentieth century had helped develop the concept of negative externalities. (Pigou also suggested it would be reasonable for governments to subsidize activities that had “positive externalities,” such as education.) The idea of pricing social and environmental costs of carbon was hardly radical; Pigou was firmly mainstream, a respected scholar at Cambridge University, a leading figure in what came to be known as the Cambridge school of economics.2 The obvious benefit of the Pigouvian approach was that it remedied the market failure directly by embedding information—in this case scientific information—into the price of fossil fuels. Then consumers could decide for themselves whether or not to buy more expensive fossil fuels, and producers of alternatives could compete on a level playing field.

The Clinton administration proposed to address climate change through a Pigouvian tax, the so-called “BTU” tax (referring to the heat content of fuels as measured in British Thermal Units).3 But it was opposed—indeed, ridiculed—by a broad coalition of conservatives, including, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, and virtually every right-wing think tank in America.4 

The notorious Global Climate Coalition, a network of fossil fuel producers and users that in the 1990s successfully prevented the U.S. Congress from ratifying the Kyoto protocol to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, was originally established as a committee of the National Association of Manufacturers. Even though the idea of putting a price on carbon was a mainstream economic approach to market failure, Republicans framed it as just another example of Democrats’ penchant to “tax and spend.” The Wall Street Journal mocked it as Al Gore’s “favorite tax.”5

In his 1979 paper on nonmarket failure, economist Charles Wolf had slipped into his conclusion the idea that one cause of nonmarket failure was “premature but politically effective demands for government action.”6 In the 1990s, many Republicans picked up on this theme, arguing that it was premature to act on climate change. Even at the time, that was wrong: scientists already had a consensus that man-made climate change was under way and likely to be very costly.7 To act in the 1990s would have been appropriate. It would have been timely. But Clinton was unable to generate congressional support for action; Republican opposition made it clear that any proposal to put a price on carbon would be dead on arrival. In 1999, when Vice President Al Gore ran for president on a platform prioritizing climate change, journalist Gregg Easterbrook (brother of Judge Frank Easterbrook) embarrassed him on the campaign trail with a false story that his mentor—climate champion Roger Revelle—had experienced a deathbed conversion and died thinking climate change was not a serious problem.8 (He had not.)

As the 1990s became the 2000s—and scientists declared the evidence “unequivocal”—market fundamentalist did not adjust their views. To the contrary, their opposition hardened.9

In 2006, Lord Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, concluded on behalf of the UK government that, yes, fixing climate change would be expensive—perhaps as much as 1 percent of global GDP per annum—but not fixing it would cost much more: at least 5 percent and perhaps as much as 20 percent.10 Here was a solid argument from a man who could scarcely be accused of being any kind of -ist other than an economist. In response, conservatives dug in deeper. Senator Ted Cruz promoted the canard that global warming had stopped; Senator James Inhofe called it a liberal conspiracy to bring down capitalism.11 No matter what solutions were proposed—market-friendly or not—the right wing found reasons to oppose them. The science wasn’t settled (they claimed). It would be too expensive to fix. We could just adapt. It was all a hoax. Often these claims were couched in libertarian terms, as when in 2011 former House Speaker Newt Gingrich deemed the push to address climate change “the newest excuse to take control of lives.”12

The singular exception to climate denial in Republican Party leadership was Senator John McCain. He and conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman introduced Climate Stewardship acts in 2003, 2005, and 2007 to address the carbon dioxide emissionsthat drive climate change by creating an emissions trading system—a proven mechanism, albeit more complicated than a Pigouvian tax. But when given the chance to use it to address climate change, Republicans refused.13 The 2003 bill failed on mostly party lines, with a few Democrats and nearly all Republicans in opposition. But it was a closer call than many expected, and soon Congress faced intense lobbying pressure against climate legislation, particularly from NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The 2005 version came to a vote and failed 60–38, with only a handful of Republicans voting yea.14 Two years after that, McCain could not even persuade Republican leaders to bring a climate bill to the Senate floor.15

In 2009, Congress tried once more, with the American Clean Energy and Security Act (better known as Waxman-Markey, for its primary sponsors, Massachusetts representative Ed Markey and California representative Henry Waxman). For the fourth time in a decade, Congress had the opportunity to address climate change using a market mechanism, and for the fourth time rejected it.The bill barely passed the Democratic-led House; nearly all Republicans voted against, as did Democrats from fossil-fuel-producing states (and a few Democrats who found the bill too weak). The Senate never brought it to a vote. Democrats concluded they could not overcome the “wall of opposition” they faced from their Republican colleagues, opposition fortified by fierce lobbying.16 One analysis concluded that, in the eighteen months between January 2009 and June 2010, electric utilities, oil and gas companies, trade associations, and think tanks spent at least $500 million against climate change legislation.17 Another study tracinganti-climate lobbying back to 2003 places the figure at closer to $1 billion.18

The fossil fuel industry’s economic interests in preventing climate action have always been obvious; less understood is how it has camouflaged those interests. No one ever said, “I am denying climate change to protect corporate profits.” They said they were protecting jobs, protecting the economy, and protecting free markets from government “encroachment.” They said they were fighting for capitalism and freedom.

But historically, capitalism has never been just one thing: Adam Smith’s eighteenth-century vision of a democratic, distributed marketplace populated by small bankers and businessmen was a far cry from the industrial capitalism that developed in early nineteenth-century England and Germany—with its cruel “Satanic mills”—or the monopolies and managerial capitalism that came to dominate America in the late nineteenth century, much less the globally financed capitalism that emerged at the end of the twentieth century. China has liberalized its markets while continuing to oppress and even murder its ethnic and religious minorities. There are many capitalisms. American market fundamentalists fight for a form of capitalism that is both brutal and ignorant: that brushes aside market failure, anticompetitive practices, and external costs, in part by denying the facts of science, the facts of history, and the necessary role of government in making capitalism work.19

The question is not whether government should set limits that prevent individual autonomy from producing collective harm, the question is where we draw the lines. That is not an economic question, it is a political one. Market fundamentalists have managed to distract from the political aspects of these decisions and frame them as questions of “economic freedom.” Thus, a reasonable response to climate change is rejected as unreasonable “government encroachment.”

All this may make one wonder: was this ever reallyabout capitalism? Or freedom? Or was it all just one long, semi-continuous, shape-shifting defense of the prerogatives of big business? Of freedom for capital and capitalists? Or had the market fundamentalists spent so much time defending the magic of the market- place that they simply couldn’t accept market failure on a global scale? To accept the enormity of what climate change portended for civilization was to accept that capitalism, as practiced, was undermining the very prosperity it was supposed to deliver. And not just in some distant future, butnow.

ref bib...

===

mma 2 23

cNN’s State of the Unionand host Dana Bash held a Sunday roundtable discussion about the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment featuring CNN political commentator David Urban, who said that “there's plenty of blame to go around on this” and pivoted to criticizing the Biden administration. CNN never disclosed or asked Urban about his  work for Norfolk Southern, which paid him and his then-lobbying firm over a million dollars.

Urban was until 2020 the president of the lobbying firm American Continental Group,where he lobbied for Norfolk Southern on “transportation issues related to railways” starting in 2009, according to federal disclosure forms. He and his firm collected at least $1,140,000, according to a calculation of federal data by ProPublica. 

The Republican commentator is now the managing director for BGR Group, a leadinglobbying firm that presents countless conflicts of interestfor his on-air work. In its most recent lobbying quarter, BGR has continued to lobby on transportation issues. Its website also states: “Our clients in the aviation, automotive, rail, shipping and mass transit industries rely on BGR to educate political leaders about how vital these industries are to domestic and international commerce.” 

Urban also played a key role in the election of former President Donald Trump, who weakened safety regulations in the rail industry.

He appeared on the February 26 edition of CNN’s State of the Union,where he participated in a panel discussion about East Palestine. CNN identified him on screen as a CNN political commentator and former Trump campaign adviser.

During the segment, Bash said that the Trump administration rolled back regulations, to which Urban replied: “There's plenty of blame to go around on this, on these kind -- when these kinds of things happen. But what's important is what we do moving forward, right, to take care of the people in these towns and communities.” He then went on to criticize the Biden administration for allegedly “sloughing off” the crisis.

CNN and Bash didn’t disclose Urban’s work for Norfolk Southern and BGR’s connections to the railroad industry. And Bash didn’t challenge him on whether any of the “blame” should go to Norfolk Southern or about his own work for the company. Norfolk Southern, specifically, lobbied against safety regulations.

CNN has continued to employ Urban despite a dizzying array of ethical problems. For example:

• Urban urged a military strike against Iran without any disclosure that he worked for defense contractors.
• Urban praised then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper without the network disclosing that he personally lobbied the Defense Department on behalf of defense contractors.
• Urban repeatedly attacked environmental protections without disclosing he lobbied for fossil fuel-related clients including Norfolk Southern, which transports coal. 
• Urban repeatedly pushed for the passage of a trade agreement on-air after he was hired to lobby for it. The network didn’t disclose the conflict of interest.
• Urban touted a lobbying client’s opposition to a tax bill without any disclosure that they paid him.

===

===

an comm dr 1 23

Both alarm and concern were expressed Saturday in response to new reporting about a charitable group with close ties to the U.S. Supreme Court that has been soliciting and accepting donations from corporate interests and far-right activists with cases before the Court.

The New York Times exposé focused on the activities and fundraising of the Supreme Court Historical Society, a nonprofit that claims its mission is "dedicated to the collection and preservation" of the Court's history.

While the group refused to disclose its donors to the Times, reporters from the newspaper determine that much of the funding came from powerful companies like Chevron, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, and Facebook as well as anti-abortion activists like Rev. Rob Schenck.

According to the newspaper:

*:{The society has raised more than $23 million over the last two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors—and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.

At least $6.4 million—or 60 percent—came from corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court,}: according to an analysis of archived historical society newsletters and publicly available records that detail grants given to the society by foundations. Of that, at least $4.7 million came from individuals or entities in years when they had a pending interest in a federal court case on appeal or at the high court, records show.*

In the case of Chevron, the oil giant actively gave to the society even as it had a pending climate litigation working its way through the court.

In response to the new revelations, public interest attorney Steven Donzinger, who was himself targeted by Chevron for his work aimed at holding the company to account for its polluting activities in Ecuador, said the implications were "horrifying."

"Why are these conflicts allowed?" asked Donzinger.

*Others quoted by the Times said the effort by people like Rev. Schenck, who admits to using the charitable group as a way to get other anti-abortion activists closer to the justices, creates a clear conflict of interest.

Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who once served as solicitor general in the Reagan administration and counts himself a donor to the Historical Society, told the newspaper was so "horrified" by Schenck's behavior that he may no longer give.*

"It's disgusting," Fried said. "Many of the people who contribute have the same reasons I do. You go to a cocktail party and support a good cause. But it turns out that for some people it's not that innocent."

While the Times notes that the Historical Society is "ostensibly independent of the judicial branch of government," the reality is that "the two are inextricably intertwined," with court justices serving as chair of the board and hosting gala events where exclusive access is reportedly part of the allure.

The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said the reporting raises "significant questions" about the group which has "raked in millions—a significant chunk of it from groups with cases before the Court" over the last two decades.

Fix the Court, which acts as a watchdog organization for the U.S. Supreme Court, said the justification for the Historical Society's existence just doesn't hold water.

and Gabe Roth, the group's executive director, told the Times that if money was an issue for funding such a project it would be the best solution—one free of ethical concerns—for Congress to simply appropriate the money needed to maintain the history of the Court.

===

===

an 11 22

Since early 2021, corporations that have played a major role in pushing inflation to a four-decade high in the United States have swarmed Capitol Hill with lobbyists to prevent Congress from passing legislation aimed at curbing companies' ability to price gouge consumers at will.

That's according to a report published Thursday by Public Citizen and the Groundwork Collaborative, which scoured federal lobbying disclosures to examine how trade groups and individual corporations have worked to shield their pricing power at the expense of the consumers.

The new report focuses specifically on 27 anti-price gouging and profiteering bills, none of which have fully passed and many of which failed to reach the floor for a vote after powerful corporate lobbying organizations—such as the drug industry's PhRMA and the Chamber of Commerce—"blanketed" the nation's capital with influence peddlers.

According to the Public Citizen and Groundwork's findings, "Corporations opposed to anti-price gouging and profiteering bills were responsible for more than 2,600 lobbyist engagements on Capitol Hill, while supporters of such legislation had fewer than 300: a 9-to-1 advantage for big business."

"H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings' Lower Drug Costs Now Act (the signature drug pricing reform bill of the Democrats in the House) resulted in 1,157 lobbyist engagements, the most of any bill in this analysis," the report notes."Ninety-six percent of the engagements (1,110) came from corporations, trade groups, and non-profits opposed to the bill, giving the opposition a 24-to-1 advantage."

Though congressional Democrats ultimately passed scaled-back drug pricing reforms as part of their broader Inflation Reduction Act, Big Pharma has continued raising prices on lifesaving products and treatments after industry-backed lawmakers blocked bolder action. By one measure, the pharmaceutical industry has spent at least $147 million to obstruct efforts to bring down drug prices during the coronavirus pandemic.

"Corporate America deployed its overwhelming lobbying power to stop anti-price gouging and profiteering legislation to protect their record profits. It's all about money for them,"Mike Tanglis, a research director for Public Citizenand report co-author, said in a statement. "But for millions of Americans, it's about a lot more than just money. For those struggling to pay for prescription drugs, Big Pharma's price gouging can be a matter of life and death."

Corporate lobbyists have also targeted the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, a bill that proposes giving the president the authority to prohibit oil and gas giants from increasing fuel prices to "unconscionably excessive" levels. The measure was fervently opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, whose member list includes ExxonMobil and Chevron—fossil fuel behemoths that both reported sky-high profits last week.

The Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, which passed the Democratic-controlled House without any GOP support but stalled in the evenly divided Senate, has drawn 83 total lobbying engagements, nearly three-quarters of them from opponents of the bill, according to Public Citizen and Groundwork. Oil giants have also lobbied against a proposed windfall profits tax measure that has thus far failed to advance as prices at the pump remain elevated.

"This report highlights how the corporations fighting these bills have been the very ones responsible for jacking up prices on consumers and whose bottom line would be impacted the most if these bills were signed into law," said Michael Mitchell, Groundwork's director of policy and research and a co-author of the report. "Congress must rein in the unchecked and outsized power these megacorporations hold over our economy."

The report was released hours after the Federal Reserve announced yet another large interest rate hike despite growing warnings that its approach won't tackle the primary drivers of inflation, including ongoing supply chain issues and corporate profiteering. Fed Chair Jerome Powell didn't mention the latter factor during his statement to the press on Wednesday, and reporters neglected to ask him a single question about it.

Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute estimated in September that "rising profit margins have accounted for roughly 40% of the rise in prices" since the second quarter of 2020.

In their new analysis, Public Citizen and Groundwork note that "booming corporate profits and fatter profit margins have not gone unnoticed."

"Consumers and policymakers alike have become increasingly aware that corporations are taking advantage of the moment and, in response, lawmakers have proposed various bills designed to hold corporations accountable and address rampant price gouging," the groups observe. "This report demonstrates that many of the same companies enjoying record profits— including household names such as Chevron, Johnson and Johnson, and Pfizer—are also deploying lobbyists to block these very proposals."

While welcoming recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act as a step in the right direction, the report argues Congress must go much further to "address corporate concentration and rein in the unchecked power that these megacorporations exert on prices and our democracy."

"Policymakers should also consider enacting an excess profits tax to reduce the incentive for companies to engage in profiteering behavior," the report states. "To accomplish this, elected officials must push back against the lobbying onslaught by corporations very much invested in maintaining the status quo."

===

----

https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/kyrsten-sinema/

Senate Democrats passed a pared-backed reconciliation package on Sunday, but only after a pair of widely supported provisions that would have made it harder for Wall Street tycoons to reduce their tax bills were removed at the behest of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema—the right-wing Arizona Democrat who has taken more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from private equity executives during the current election cycle.

"Remember the days when taking half a million bucks from an industry, and then passing legislation that only benefits that industry, while passing the costs onto everyone else, would be called corruption?" Brown University political economist Mark Blyth asked on social media. "Today it's just lobbying as usual."

:{

}:

Last week, Sinema agreed to back the Inflation Reduction Act as long as the so-called "carried interest loophole," which benefits hedge fund managers and private equity moguls by allowing their investment income to be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of around 20% rather than the ordinary top income rate of 37%, was preserved.

Democrats, who needed Sinema's support to pass the filibuster-proof bill through the evenly split Senate, obliged, forgoing a modest reform that would have raised an estimated $14 billion in federal revenue over a decade by increasing the holding period for investments to qualify for preferential tax treatment from three to five years.

As the Financial Times noted Monday, the Arizona Democrat "is a beneficiary of significant contributions from the private equity industry—whose lobbying machine and political influence have grown increasingly powerful over the past two decades."

Citing Federal Election Commission filings, the newspaper reported:

Sinema has received more than half a million dollars in campaign donations from private equity group executives in this election cycle alone, representing about 10% of her fundraising from individual donors. This includes individual donations totalling $54,900 from executives at KKR, $35,000 from Carlyle, $27,300 from Apollo, $24,500 from Crow Holdings Capital and $23,300 from Riverside Partners.

The securities and investment sector as a whole has donated more than $2.2 million to Sinema since she was elected in 2017,according to OpenSecrets. Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich quipped last week, amid reports of Sinema's plans to undermine her party's efforts to hike taxes on corporations and the wealthy, that Wall Street is "getting a huge return on their investment."

In addition to stripping the carried interest provision from the Inflation Reduction Act, Sinema protected private equity-owned corporations from a new 15% minimum tax on billion-dollar firms.

As The Washington Post reported Sunday:

As originally written, the provision would have required private equity firms to tally profits from their various holdings and pay the tax if the total exceeded the $1 billion threshold.

Sinema, who for over a year has blocked Democratic ambitions to raise taxes, raised objections on Saturday, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private talks. The senator argued that, without changes to the bill, small and medium-sized businesses that happen to be owned by private equity firms would be exposed to the tax, violating a Democratic pledge to hike taxes only on the largest firms. A Sinema spokeswoman said several Arizona small businesses, including a plant nursery, had raised concerns.

Steve Wamhoff, an analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, told the Post, "The idea that billion-dollar private equity funds must be protected to save small businesses is absolutely absurd."

:{

}:

Nevertheless, the newspaper noted, "the last-minute changes mark a significant victory for the private equity industry and an estimated savings of $35 billion over the next decade."

Following the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act on Sunday, the progressive tax reform group Patriotic Millionaires ran a mobile billboard around the Capitol to thank Senate Democrats, with the exception of Sinema, who was denounced for being bought by private equity billionaires. The truck made stops at the offices of the American Investment Council and the Carlyle Group in Washington, D.C.

"Bravo to 49 of the 50 senators who voted today to end an era of rampant criminal tax abuse at the highest levels of American society and American business," Erica Payne, founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement. "In a journey of 1,000 miles, this is an impressive first step."

"Shame on Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming across the finish line, carrying water for her private equity overloads to the bitter end," Payne continued. "Thanks in large part to Sinema's obstruction, there's more work to be done, but the Inflation Reduction Act is a monumental step in the right direction."

===

===

trumpista 360 rev dr?! wheeler?

bernhardt brownstein

https://www.citizen.org/article/third-conflict-of-interest-complaint-against-interior-secretary-david-bernhardt/

august 19, 2020

*Heather Gottry

Designated Agency Ethics Official

U.S. Department of Interior

1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 7352

Washington, D.C.  20240*

Dear Ms. Gottry:

On March 20, 2018, and again on February 12, 2019, Public Citizen wrote to your office expressing concern that David Bernhardt, now Secretary of Interior, worked on particular issues on behalf of specific parties as part of his previous occupation as an energy lobbyist that seem to pose serious conflicts of interest with his official duties. Public Citizen requested that your office investigate whether such conflicts of interest may present violations of paragraphs 6 and 7 of President Donald Trump’s ethics Executive Order No. 13770 and perhaps the conflict of interest code itself.

Both requests for an investigation went unanswered and so, presumably, were dismissed.

Last week, the independent Office of Inspector General for the Interior Department found that department staff deliberately withheld 253 pages of documents from the Senate and House Natural Resources Committees as well as the public that may have provided further insight into Bernhardt’s potential conflicts of interest.[[1]](https://www.citizen.org/article/third-conflict-of-interest-complaint-against-interior-secretary-david-bernhardt/#_ftn1)

 Following Bernhardt’s confirmation as Secretary of the Interior in April 2019, the department staff eventually released redacted versions of all but 38 pages of these documents. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called for a criminal investigation as to whether Interior Department staff orchestrated a cover-up to protect Bernhardt during his confirmation hearing.[[2]](https://www.citizen.org/article/third-conflict-of-interest-complaint-against-interior-secretary-david-bernhardt/#_ftn2)

The withholding of these documents from congressional and public view may well have unduly influenced the confirmation of Bernhardt as Interior Secretary. In the same vein, if these documents were kept from your office, the withholding of pertinent information related to Bernhardt may also have unduly influenced the decision by the Interior Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) not to carry through with an investigation of potential conflicts of interest.

In light of these recent revelations of withheld information regarding Bernhardt, Public Citizen requests that the ethics office of the Department of Interior scrutinize these recently-released documents and other relevant information and investigate whether David Bernhardt’s previous occupation as a lobbyist on energy affairs and other natural resources issues[[3]](https://www.citizen.org/article/third-conflict-of-interest-complaint-against-interior-secretary-david-bernhardt/#_ftn3) involves sufficient conflicts of interest to cause violations of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Trump’s ethics Executive Order or the conflict of interest code (18 U.S.C. §208).

Public Citizen’s previous complaints are attached on the .pdf.

Respectfully Submitted,

*Craig Holman, Ph.D.

Government affairs lobbyist

Public Citizen

215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C.  20003

(202) 454-5182*

===

===

https://redgreenandblue.org/2022/02/04/cant-nice-things-western-states-petroleum-association-spent-17-5-million-lobbying-ca-officials-past-3-years/

Why we can’t have nice things: Western States Petroleum Association spent $17.5 million lobbying CA officials over past 3 years

Published on February 4th, 2022

TAGGED: BIG OIL, CALIFORNIA, DRILL BABY DRILL, LOBBYING, WPA

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the largest and most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, has spent over $17.5 million lobbying the California Legislature and other state officials over the past three years.

In 2021, WSPA spent $4,397,004 lobbying legislators and state officials to serve Big Oil’s agenda, according to data filed with California Secretary of State’s Office.

The association spent $957,137 on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2021. The money went to an array of in-house lobbyists and outside lobbying firms, topped by Ramball Environ in Philadelphia that received $116,981 in the fourth quarter and $366,864 in 2021.

In 2021, WSPA lobbied on the following legislation and ongoing processes, giving you an idea of the vast array of processes that WSPA was involved in influencing:

SB 342; LEGISLATURE – CARBON NEUTRALITY, CALIFORNIA CLIMATE GOALS, GENERAL EDUCATION ONOFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, EDUCATION ON UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM ISSUES, CARBON CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND STORAGE, OFFSHORE PRODUCTION; DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION – CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION POLICY, – PUBLIC HEALTH RULEMAKING, HEALTH AND SAFETY INITIATIVE, CARBON CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND STORAGE, SETBACKS, UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL; GOVERNOR’S OFFICE – CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION POLICY, – CARBON CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND STORAGE, SETBACKS, OFFSHORE PRODUCTION; STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD – PERAND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES; CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD – AB 32 IMPLEMENTATION,CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY,OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION POLICY, SCOPING PLAN, LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD, CARBON NEUTRALITY; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL – HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORTING FRAMEWORK; CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ANDHEALTH – PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS;CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION – R. 18-12-005,R. 20-01-007,R. 20-05-002,R. 21-06-017; OFFICE OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL – PIPELINE FEE INCREASE

WSPA spent a total of $8.8 million in 2019 and $4,267,181 in 2020 on lobbying California legislators and officials as thousands of oil and gas drilling permits were approved by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency: www.citywatchla.com/…

In 2020, even a weak bill recommending health and safety setbacks around oil and gas failed to get through the oil industry-friendly California Legislature.

Then in 2021, another stronger bill, SB 467, failed to pass throughout the legislature because of heavy oil industry lobbying of legislators, including those who had received big campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. The bill would have banned fracking by 2023 eliminating fracking and instituting mandatory health and safety zones between oil and gas extraction and places where Californians live, work, and study.

However, the inordinate influence by Big Oil on California politicians and regulators is most dramatically evidenced by the approval of thousands of new and reworked oil and gas well permits by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency, since Newsom took office in January 2019.

On the same day the LA City Council voted to ban oil and gas wells in city limits, Consumer Watchdog and FracTracker Alliance reported that Governor Newsom has approved 10,212 oil drilling permits since he assumed office in 2019. The total is nearly identical to the number of permits Governor Jerry Brown approved in his first three years.

The good news is that permits issued fell from the number issued in 2020,according to the latest analysis by FracTracker Alliance of permits approved through December 31, 2021, and posted by Consumer Watchdog at www.Newsomwellwatch.org.

“Nevertheless, Newsom’s number is nipping on the heels of Brown’s 10,268 permits dispensed in his first three years in office.  Brown ultimately approved 31,545 wells during his eight years in office,” the groups revealed....

===

http://redgreenandblue.org/

On February 17, Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) introduced a bill in the California Legislature that would mandate that California’s public pension funds stop investing in fossil fuel companies. SB1173, the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, would require these state pension funds to make no new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest existing fossil fuel investments […]

Dan Bacher February 21st

California State Senator Lena Gonzalez introduces fossil fuel divestment bill

On February 17, Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) introduced a bill in the California Legislature that would mandate that California’s public pension funds stop investing in fossil fuel companies. SB1173, the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, would require these state pension funds to make no new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest existing fossil fuel investments […]

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest non-federal pension funds in the country, have over $9 billion invested in fossil fuel companies and related energy sector industries. CalSTRS has about $469 billion in assets, while CalPERS has $327 billion in assets.

A recent  report estimates that out of these funds CalPERS invests $5.5 billion in fossil fuel companies and CalSTRS invests $3.4 billion.

For decades, predominately black and brown, low income communities have suffered from the harmful health effects of living in communities surrounded by oil and gas wells in California, a state that styles itself as a “green” and “progressive” leader but still does not have setbacks from oil and gas wells like other states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and even Texas do.

For Nalleli Cobo of Los Angeles, the need for divestment from fossil fuel companies is very personal. When the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) met publicly with advocates of fossil fuel divestment at a virtual Sustainability Symposium onFebruary 9, Cobo shared her experience growing up near an oil well.

“My health declined,” she testified. “I started getting body spasms so severe I couldn’t move. My mom would have to carry me from one place to another. At the age of 19, I was diagnosed with stage 2 cancer.”

“It’s important that teachers’ money doesn’t go to killing kids, it doesn’t go to damaging their organs or their health; it goes to protecting them and guaranteeing a beautiful life for them,” Cobo said.

Likewise, Lizbeth Ibarra, a 17 year old climate activist who grew up near the Chevron refinery in Richmond, asked CalSTRS, “How much more does my community have to suffer, how much does my future have to be in question for you to decide that your moral responsibility is to pull support from those causing the suffering?”

“Do teachers know that you’re investing their money in supporting destructive projects, from Line 3 to the East Africa crude oil pipeline?” she stated.

Accompanying the introduction of the bill, Gonzalez held a press conference Thursday that featured Miriam Eide, Coordinating Director, Fossil Free California; Carlos Davidson, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University and California Faculty Association member; Raven Fonseca Jensen, Member,Youth vs Apocalypse;

Senator Gonzalez, who as a mother of three and a resident of a district where residents suffer from exposure to toxics, knows first hand about the impacts of fossil fuel corporations on frontline communities.

“Investing billions in the fossil fuel companies that are polluting our environment while at the same time trying to meet ambitious emissions reduction goals is contradictory and incongruous,” she said. “SB 1173 will ensure we remain true to our values and honor our commitment as a State to protecting the environment and the health and future of all Californians, including historically disadvantaged communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by the hazardous pollutants released into our communities by these companies.”

In response to my question about how divestment bill proponents will overcome the grip that the oil industry lobby has on the Legislature, she said the Legislature passed a similar bill in 2015 requiring CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from coal companies.

She also noted that an estimated 1,500 institutions with over $39 trillion in  assets have already committed to divestment, including  the University of California, the California State  University, the State and City of New York, the State of  Maine, the Vatican, and the province of Quebec.

“I think the political appetite is out there now for this bill,” she said.

Miriam Eide, Coordinating Director atFossil Free California, said after eight years of CalSTRS and CalPERS ignoring the calls of students, teachers, and state workers to divest their pensions, her group is “grateful to Senator Gonzalez for leading the way in today’s legislative push for pension divestment.”

“Divestment is the right thing to do for climate change and is a smart financial move for our pensions,” echoed Carlos Davidson, CFA Peace & Justice Committee member and retired San Francisco State professor. “We have to stop pretending that fossil fuel companies are good corporate citizens. Their own scientists knew their product was causing climate change, but the companies kept it secret.”

”CFA wields a powerful credential in California, and we can best serve our principles of social and racial justice by taking a lead in climate justice for future generations of students, families and communities,” said Davidson, who helped organize the campaign for CFA to vote for CALPERS divestment last year.

Another CFA member, Anne Luna-Gordinier, a sociology professor at Sacramento State who is of Cherokee and Choctaw ancestry, emphasized SB 1173 is urgently needed now, since “we are facing an existential crisis.”

She cited a recent scientific journal article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z) revealing that the drought in the Western states that started in 2000 represents the driest two decades in 1200 years, in addition to citing a NOAA report stating that coastal areas in the U.S. will see frequent flooding due to climate change.

Finally, Anaya Sayal, a member of Youth Vs Apocalypse, also urged support for SB 1173.

“Divestment is essential to the wellbeing of the large community of people of color being affected by fossil fuel investments, along with the entirety of the planet, which is being greatly harmed,” stated Sayal. “Fossil fuels are heavily contributing to the climate crisis, placing future generations in a horrible situation, even though the current generation could make great strides towards solving this issue so the burden does not completely fall on them.”

Background: Big Oil’s Grip on Sacramento  

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the largest and most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, has spent over $17.5 million alone lobbying the California Legislature and other state officials over the past three years.

In 2021, WSPA spent $4,397,004 lobbying legislators and state officials to serve Big Oil’s agenda, according to data filed with California Secretary of State’s Office.

The association spent $957,137 on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2021. The money went to an array of in-house lobbyists and outside lobbying firms, topped by Ramball Environ in Philadelphiathat received $116,981 in the fourth quarter and $366,864 in 2021.

WSPA spent a total of $8.8 million in 2019 and $4,267,181 in 2020 on lobbying California legislators and officials as thousands of oil and gas drilling permits were approved by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency: www.citywatchla.com/…

In 2020, even a weak bill recommending health and safety setbacks around oil and gas failed to get through the oil industry-friendly California Legislature.

Then in 2021, another stronger bill, SB 467, failed to pass throughout the legislature because of heavy oil industry lobbying of legislators, including those who had received big campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. The bill would have banned fracking by 2023 eliminating fracking and instituting mandatory health and safety zones between oil and gas extraction and places where Californians live, work, and study.

The inordinate influence by Big Oil on California politicians and regulators is most dramatically evidenced by the approval of thousands of new and reworked onshore oil and gas well permits by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency, since Newsom took office in January 2019.

On the same day the LA City Council voted to ban oil and gas wells in city limits, Consumer Watchdog and FracTracker Alliance reported at www.NewsomWellWatch.org that Governor Newsom has approved 10,212 oil drilling permits since he assumed office in 2019. The total is nearly identical to the number of permits Governor Jerry Brown approved in his first three years.

Lobbying is just one of the seven methods that Big Oil uses in California to exercise inordinate influence over California regulators. WSPA and Big Oil wield their power in 7 major ways: through (1) lobbying; (2) campaign spending; (3) serving on and putting shills on regulatory panels; (4) creating Astroturf groups; (5) working in collaboration with media; (6) creating alliances with labor unions; and (7) contributing to non profit organizations.

In one glaring example of oil and gas industry officials serving on regulatory panels, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired  the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create “marine protected areas” in Southern California from 2009 to 2012, as well as serving on the task forces to create “marine protected areas” on the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast from 2004 to 2012.

----

===

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/12/pharma-lobby-poured-millions-into-darkmoney-groups/

pharmaceutical companies’ top lobbying group funneled millions of dollars to prominent “dark money” groups that pushed industry friendly messages to lawmakers and 2020 voters.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America raised nearly $527 million last year and spent roughly $506 million, new tax returns obtained by OpenSecrets reveal. That’s a record haul for the organization, which is funded by the world’s most powerful pharmaceutical companies.

The trade association made its largest political donation of 2019 — $4.5 million — to the American Action Network, a dark money group that backs House Republicans. The conservative nonprofit and its pharmaceutical industry donor share disdain for proposals to regulate the price of prescription drugs.

The same year it received PhRMA’s donation, theAmerican Action Networklaunched several multi-million dollar ad campaigns opposing President Donald Trump’s proposal to let Medicare negotiate drug prices. This year, the group launched multi-million dollar ad campaigns opposing House Democrats’ bill to lower drug prices and ads boosting vulnerable Republicans who supported an alternative bill considered much friendlier to drugmakers.

The alliance between drugmakers and GOP groups isn’t new. PhRMA has given $14.6 million to the American Action Network since 2016. In that time, the American Action Network became a major contributor to GOP causes. During the 2020 election cycle, it gave $26.4 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, the House Republicans’ top super PAC that helped unseat several freshman Democrats.

In several key 2020 races, the American Action Network battled with a Democratic group that also received funding from drugmakers. PhRMA gave nearly $1.6 million to Center Forward, a dark money group aligned with moderate Blue Dog Democrats, last year. That nonprofit provided most of the funding for an allied super PAC that spent $3.3 million supporting House Democrats. The pharma-backed GOP and Democratic groups went head-to-head in several key House races, including a tightly contested New York race that has come down to a handful of votes.

Late last year, as Congress debated drug pricing bills, Center Forward flew House staffers to San Francisco to meet with drug company executives. The nonprofit’s board members have also lobbied for pharmaceutical interests. Republicans in Congress are the most vocal opponents of efforts to have the government regulate drug prices — a measure that would damage drugmakers’ profits — but Blue Dog Democrats also pushed back on more aggressive proposals to lower drug prices.

Drugmakers bankroll groups pushing industry talking points to Trump

Prominent drugmakers have spent much of 2020 developing vaccines to fight COVID-19, and the threat of drug pricing legislation in Congress has died down amid the pandemic. But Trump has continued to push forward with executive actions on prescription drugs opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

PhRMA deployed creative tactics in an attempt to persuade Trump against following through on his campaign promise to aggressively lower drug prices. During the Trump era, the trade association has bankrolled conservative groups that have access to the president.

The American Conservative Union, which hosts the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, received $150,000 from PhRMA in 2019. Led by Trump ally and corporate lobbyist Matt Schlapp, the conservative nonprofit launched the Coalition Against Socialized Medicine late last year to oppose efforts to regulate drug prices and enact single-payer health care proposals. 

Nearly all of the coalition’s members received funding from drugmakers within the last two years. Big pharma’s trade group gave $505,000 to American Commitment, $78,500 to Americans for a Balanced Budget and $60,000 to the Taxpayers Protection Alliancelast year alone, according to new tax returns. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance launched a six-figure ad campaign last month aimed at killing “surprise” medical billing legislation and calling it a “handout” to big insurance companies.

New tax returns also show that pharmaceutical manufacturers’ trade group gave $200,000 to the National Sheriffs Association, a nonprofit representing thousands of law enforcement officials. The group launched a six-figure ad campaign last year warning against Trump’s proposal to import drugs from foreign countries, a measure bitterly opposed by drugmakers. Those ads specifically targeted Trump, airing in Washington, D.C., on his favorite Fox News programs.

Trump ultimately approved a plan to import drugs from Canada in September, but its scope was limited. He also moved ahead with a rule that would allow Medicare to negotiate the cost of drugs based on the price foreign governments pay, another measure strongly opposed by drugmakers.

Still, while Trump has moved ahead with industry-opposed measures, his GOP allies in Congress have not made drug pricing legislation a priority. Republican lawmakers and their aides are consistently fed opinion pieces and ad campaigns from conservative groups urging them to reject “socialist price controls.”

Republicans ran political ads in 2020 that mirrored talking points from major healthcare industry players. Super PACs aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) attacked Democrats’ over their support for a public health insurance option, a proposal that could hurt drugmakers’ profits. Those ads cited a study from the Partnership For America’s Health Care Future, a conglomerate of insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that received $300,000 from PhRMA last year.

Longtime pharmaceutical ally gets seven-figure gift in retirement

One of PhRMA’s largest 2019 gifts was a $2 million donation to the Orrin Hatch Foundation, athink tank and research library launched by former Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The trade group gave $140,000 to the foundation between 2017 and 2018. 

Hatch, who retired in January 2019, was known as the pharmaceutical industry’s “man on the Hill” by the end of his 42-year tenure. Hatch helped shape current laws that regulate generic drugs and opposed measures to limit drugmakers’ monopoly protections. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Hatch was considered the major roadblock to drug pricing changes proposed by Democrats and Trump.

the pharmaceuticals and health products industry gave $2.8 million to Hatch’s campaign committee since 1998, more than any member of Congress who didn’t run for president.When Hatch faced a primary challenge in 2012, PhRMAgave $750,000 to a super PAC boosting his reelection campaign. 

During Hatch’s final years in office, his allies reportedly asked pharmaceutical companies and K Street lobbyists for donations to fund the Orrin Hatch Foundation. In 2018, the foundation invited major corporations, including pharmaceutical giant Merck, to a luxury mountain resort for a fundraiser.

While the foundation will serve as a library to catalogue Hatch’s government service and provide civic education, it has also put out policy reports on pressing issues. Its most recent report delves into how lawmakers can craft “sensible solutions to both foster innovative biologics and curb skyrocketing drug prices.”

===

===

open secrets

EG am forest trade gp

peak 2006 $?

i'm guessing chlorine?

2006

Hired Firms Total Reported by Filer Reported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer)

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 -

Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock - $240,000

PricewaterhouseCoopers - $140,000

Accord Group - $120,000

Crowell & Moring - $40,000

Federal Policy Group - $40,000

Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc - $30,000

Terpstra Assoc - $25,000

King & Spalding - $0

$635,000

Issues Lobbied By American Forest & Paper Assn, 2006

Issue Specific Issues

Taxes 7

Trade 5

Natural Resources 4

Energy & Nuclear Power 4

Environment & Superfund 4

Clean Air & Water 4

Chemical Industry 2

Fed Budget & Appropriations 2

Manufacturing 2

Postal 2

Transportation 2

Hazardous & Solid Waste 1

Science & Technology 1

Government Issues 1

Immigration 1

many pages

Lobbying Firm Hired Total Amount* Client Lobbyist

Accord Group $120,000 American Forest & Paper Assn Robert F Hurley

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Mary Coulombe

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Anne Divjak

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Juanita D Duggan

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Alexis Englert

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Jacob Handlesman

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Donna A Harman

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Tim Hunt

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Sharon H Kneiss

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 David Koenig

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Suzanne Madden

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 W Henson Moore

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 William R Chip Murray

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Lori Perine

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Patrick Rita

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Brett Smith

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Deann Stish

American Forest & Paper Assn $4,760,000 Elizabeth VanDersarl

Crowell & Moring $40,000 American Forest & Paper Assn Steven P Quarles 

Crowell & Moring $40,000 American Forest & Paper Assn Richard E Schwartz

Federal Policy Group $40,000 American Forest & Paper Assn James F Carlisle

Federal Policy Group $40,000 American Forest & Paper Assn Jayne T Fitzgerald

Federal Policy Group $40,000 American Forest & Paper Assn Tim Hanford

Federal Policy Group $40,000 American Forest & Paper Assn Kenneth J Kies

Federal Policy Group $40,000 American Forest & Paper Assn Robert J Leonard

Revolving Door Profile    Former Member of Congress

peak 2009 but pretty steady several pages

Clients Lobbying on Environment & Superfund, 2020

Filter results

Client Subsidiary (Lobbied For) No. of Reports

Southern Co - 28

Starbucks Corp - 22

BP BP America 21

Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Defense Action Fund 19

Microsoft Corp - 18

Business Roundtable - 17

Duke Energy - 17

Lennox International - 16

Northern Dynasty Minerals Pebble Limited Partnership 16

Royal Dutch Shell Shell Oil 16

Exxon Mobil - 15

3M Co - 14

Bayer AG Bayer Corp 13

Edison Electric Institute - 13

Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Inst - 12

Americans for Carbon Dividends - 12

Chemours Co - 12

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions - 12

CropLife America - 12

FirstEnergy Corp - 12

Groupe Danone Danone North America 12

Honda Motor Co Honda North America 12

Honeywell International - 12

PepsiCo Inc - 12

PG&E Corp - 12

PG&E Corp - 12

Santa Clara Valley Water District - 12

American Beverage Assn - 11

Covanta Holding Covanta Energy Corp 11

Daikin Industries Daikin America 11

Dow Inc - 11

Interstate Natural Gas Assn of America - 11

American Forest & Paper Assn - 10

Bipartisan Policy Center Bipartisan Policy Center Advocacy Network 10

International Paper - 10

McDonald's Corp - 10

Plastics Industry Assn - 10

TRC Companies - 10

World Wildlife Fund - 10

Ameresco Inc - 9

Growth Energy - 9

Recycling Partnership - 9

Advanced Biofuels Assn - 8

Alcoa Corp - 8

Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound - 8

Aluminum Assn - 8

America's Power - 8

American Assn for Justice - 8

American Electric Power - 8

American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers - 8

...p3

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=1999&id=D000021833

==

substx --> no lnx

wapo

Climate & Environment

COP26

COP26 FAQ

Climate Solutions

Invisible project

2C project

Climate and Environment

Exxon lobbyist questions urgency of climate’s catastrophic risks

Speaking on panel, ExxonMobil lobbyist highlights carbon capture’s potential and says of global warming: ‘Is it catastrophic inevitable risk? Not in my mind.’

Listen to article

6 min

Erik Oswald, a vice president and registered lobbyist for Exxon, emphasized the profit opportunity in addressing global warming during a panel in Santa Fe, N.M.

By Desmond Butler

November 24, 2021|Updated November 24, 2021 at 9:43 a.m. EST

Just last month, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods assured lawmakers his company neither disputed the scientific consensus on climate change nor lobbied against efforts to cut carbon pollution. But a lobbyist for the oil giant struck a different tone less than two weeks later, according to a recording obtained by The Washington Post, suggesting global warming might not be so dire.

---

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/583061-exxon-lobbyist-suggests-climate-change-not-catastrophic-inevitable

lobbyist for Exxon expressed doubt that climate change carries “catastrophic, inevitable risk” in remarks made earlier this month, which were obtained by the watchdog group Documented.

In the Nov. 9 remarks to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, lobbyist Erik Oswald states, “The way I look at it as a scientist is, all's I need to think about is, is there, is there a risk? Yes, there's risk. Is it catastrophic, inevitable risk? Not in my mind. But there's risk.”

“And so if we're going to work on this, you know, as a, as a society, if we're going to work on this risk, then my only ask is, let's do it as efficiently as possible,” Oswald continues in the recording.“Findme the cheapest way to put the most CO2 in the ground,” he says in reference to carbon-capture technology. “And that's what I'm willing to engage in a conversation on.”

In the recording, first reported by The Washington Post, Oswald says the company thinks of such technology “not as the crusaders who are going to be the climate fix” but rather “looking at markets,” comparing the business opportunities of a "green premium” to consumers’ willingness to buy sugar-free foods.

"The statements lack appropriate context and are not representative of the company’s positions on important issues, including climate change and carbon capture," Casey Norton, a spokesman for ExxonMobil, said in a statement to The Hill. "ExxonMobil has long acknowledged that climate change is real and poses serious risks. In addition to our substantial investments in next generation technologies, ExxonMobil also advocates for responsible climate-related policies."

===

staffer rev dr

https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/joe-manchin-2655486530/

no lnx

*Joe Manchin’s former aides are lobbying Congress for oil, gas, tobacco and pharma companies

Meaghan Ellis November 03, 2021

As Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) works tirelessly to roll back President Joe Biden's Build Back Better agenda, several of his former aides are lobbying Congress on behalf of their corporate clients.

According to CNBC, dozens of filings to Congress indicate "at least six former aides and advisors lobbying members of Congress, including senators, for power players in industries such as coal, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, tobacco, and finance, according to more than two dozen filings to Congress."

CNBC highlighted the current work of Jonathan Kott, Manchin's former senior advisor who now works for Capitol Counsel and is lobbying for ExxonMobil.

"Kott, Manchin's senior advisor, and communications director for seven years, now works for lobbying giant Capitol Counsel.Kott started lobbying for gas giant ExxonMobil in the third quarter after he was hired by Capitol Counsel in June 2021, according to lobbying disclosures.

"Kott and his colleagues at the firm were paid $10,000 by Exxon to lobby the House and Senate, which included activities such as 'monitoring legislation impacting energy development and production" and lobbying on 'issues related to tax reform, energy taxes and taxation of U.S. multinational corporations.'"

Third-quarter lobbying disclosures also indicate that Kott received a total of $50,000 from the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.Per the company's website, they are described as "a trade association 'representing the makers of the fuels that keep Americans moving and the petrochemicals that are the essential building blocks for modern life.'"

The group's board consists of high-ranking representatives from some of the country's largest oil and gas corporations, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Badische Anilin- und SodaFabrik (BASF), and Dow Chemicals, Inc.

Patrick Hayes, Manchin's former chief of staff and current partner at Kountoupes Denham Carr & Reid, has been lobbying Congress for "mix of clean energy companies and the Industrial Minerals Association, which according to its website is a 'premier trade association representing the interests of North American companies that mine or process the industrial minerals.'"

Read the full report at CNBC.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Manchin threatening key climate provision - Alternet.org ›

'Trapped and defensive': Trump aides reportedly warned he's on a ... ›

Bannon is defying Jan. 6 committee subpoena — but other former ... ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Centrist Democrats flex muscles, create headaches for Biden ›

Progressive PAC kick-starts search for challengers to Manchin ... ›

Former Top Aide to Coons, Manchin Heads to Capitol Counsel ... ›*

*Bill Koetzle   staffer rev dr hastert

Vice President

Federal Affairs

bill Koetzle serves as senior vice president of Government Affairs, leading advocacy efforts in Congress, the Administration and federal agencies on industry priority issues.

Before joining API, Koetzle spent a decade at Chevron, managing the company’s legislative, regulatory and political affairs, including the development of the company’s policy positions and advocacy strategy to achieve top priorities. While at Chevron, Koetzle spent time in Asia leading advocacy on Chevron’s tax and environmental priorities, managing government relations, internal and external communications, and community engagement activities in support of the company’s investments in six countries, including China and Thailand.

Prior to his time at Chevron, Koetzle spent a decade working in leadership and policy development roles in the House of Representatives, including as Deputy Republican Staff Director for the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Assistant to the Speaker for Policy and Illinois Director, and Legislative Director for Representative Dennis Hastert (R–Ill.) beginning in 1998. During his time in Congress, Koetzle managed the congressional and district offices for the Representative-turned-Speaker of the House, as well as constituent services and appropriations and was the primary advisor to Speaker Hastert on energy, environment, telecommunications, natural resources and agricultural issues. Koetzle later served as the Senior Vice President for Public Policy at the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit organization that conducts research and analysis on impacts to global energy markets.

Koetzle graduated summa cum laude from the University of California at Irvine. He went on to earn his master’s and Ph.D. in political science, also from the University of California at Irvine. Koetzle and his family reside in northern Virginia.*

===

mccoy said talked to manchin weekly?! BBB now 1/2 $

an 10 21

no lnx

There it is': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets energy exec to admit his efforts to influence Congress

Alex Henderson October 28, 2021

Sen. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City, a major proponent of green energy, has been arguing that the fossil fuel industry has way too much influence on lawmakers — and she found evidence of that influence when questioning ExxonMobile CEO Darren Woods during a recent hearing.

Referring to the Build Back Better Act of 2021, Ocasio-Cortez asked Woods, "Have you participated in any calls with members of Congress throughout this process of reconciliation and infrastructure?" — to which Woods responded, "I have."

AOC: Have you participated in any calls with members of Congress throughout this process of reconciliation and infr… https://t.co/RxBSQyC5u4

— Acyn (@Acyn) 1635447796.0

Following the hearing, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted:

And there it is. https://t.co/JNLmLEBC2L

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) 1635447321.0

===

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/big-pharma/

Dozens of vulnerable House Democrats are worried that the party's stalled spending negotiations with Joe Manchin will cost them seats in the midterms — and hand Congress to the Republicans

Democrats planned to include legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, fulfilling a campaign promise that helped them win control of the House in the "blue wave" of 2018, as part of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better legislation. The plan ran into an expensive lobbying blitz from the pharmaceutical industry, prompting Democrats to significantly water down the bill to limit the number of drugs Medicare could negotiate amid pushback from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and other industry-aligned Democrats –– and that was before Manchin blew up the Build Back Better package entirely.

"We cannot overstate the paramount urgency of fulfilling the promise of lowering drug prices now for the American people," a group of 40 House Democrats, led by Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., said in a letter to party leaders on Monday.

The letter came after pharmaceutical companies hiked prices on hundreds of medications to start the year. A recent report from the patient advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs found that drug companies have increased prices on more than 550 drugs, including 183 drugs whose prices were raised by $100 or more, and 118 drugs that now cost more than $5,000. Pfizer alone raised prices on 125 drugs, more than any company, even as it shattered profit records thanks to $36 billion in sales from its widely-used COVID vaccine.

"Even as we enter the third year of a pandemic, Big Pharma continues its practice of targeting American patients and consumers with price increases, completely undeterred by the financial and health challenges facing American families," David Mitchell, the founder of Patients for Affordable Drugs, said in a statement.

"Drug corporations can do this because we let them — unlike other nations that use their purchasing power to get a better deal," said Mitchell, who suffers from an incurable blood cancer that is treated with a cocktail of drugs carrying a list price of more than $900,000 per year. The original drug-pricing agreement in the Build Back Better Act, he said, "would curb rising drug prices for millions of patients and halt abusive annual price hikes by limiting increases to the rate of inflation, which is projected to return to 2.3 percent in 2023."

Election forecasts generally suggest that Democrats will lose control of the House in the midterms, making the popular drug legislation a key priority, especially after Manchin and Sinema effectively killed off several other popular Democratic proposals, including a rollback of the Trump-era tax cuts, an extension of the expanded Child Tax Credit, and paid family leave.

A Data for Progress poll last fall found that likely voters support the Medicare legislation by a 55-point margin, including 83% of Democrats, 71% of independents, and 65% of Republicans.

"Taking action on prescription drugs is one of the most popular political issues Democrats can pursue — it's overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan majority of voters," Sean McElwee, the founder and executive director of Data for Progress, said in an email. "Democrats need to take every opportunity to lower costs for voters and deliver popular legislation that visibly improves their lives this November."

Manchin, who walked away from Build Back Better negotiations in December after the White House called him out by name in a statement over the bill's delay, said on Tuesday that the Build Back Better bill is "dead" and any negotiations on potential spending programs would have to start from scratch. Biden has said that he hopes to include "chunks" of the original bill in a potential compromise package with Manchin.

Last year, Manchin said he supported the drug-price legislation, calling it the "one thing that should be done for sure." But the West Virginia senator appears to be prioritizing bipartisan negotiations to reform the Electoral Count Act over any would-be spending bill, leaving a key Democratic campaign promise in limbo.

"President Biden supports this plan. We support this plan," the House Democratic group said in their letter. "Every Democratic member of the U.S. Senate supports this plan. And most importantly, the American people support this plan. It is time to enact it into law. Already this year, drug corporations have raised prices on more than 400 drugs. Action can't happen soon enough to make medicines more affordable for the millions who need them."

The price increases came after the pharmaceutical lobby shattered its own record for lobbying spending as it rallied around the cause of defeating Biden's legislation. Democrats like Sinema and Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., two of the biggest recipients of Big Pharma donations, led an effort to cut the number of drugs that could be negotiated by Medicare. Even so, the compromise legislation would save taxpayers an estimated $80 billion while capping price increases on certain medications, capping out-of-pocket costs for seniors, and capping the cost of insulin at $35 for people on Medicare and on private plans.

Medicare is the only government agency that is barred from negotiating bulk pricing discounts — the result of an infamous scheme hatched by Big Pharma lobbyists and a Republican leader who rammed the provision into a bill that required Medicare to cover the cost of prescription drugs, shortly before he left Congress and became the top lobbyist for the industry. A three-year investigation by the House Oversight and Reform Committee last month found that pharmaceutical companies exploit the Medicare program to boost revenues, noting that taxpayers could have saved more than $25 billion over five years if Medicare was allowed to negotiate the cost of just seven popular drugs such as Humira and Lyrica.

The investigation also found that drug companies "aggressively raise prices" to hit revenue targets and incentives for executives and have targeted the U.S. market for higher prices while keeping costs lower overseas. The report also concluded that drug companies "abuse the patent system" to suppress competition and maintain monopoly pricing. Drug companies contend that their huge profits are necessary to fund research and development, but the investigation found that the 14 leading drug companies spent $577 billion on stock buybacks and dividends over just five years, $56 billion more than they spent on research and development over that same period.

The limited Medicare negotiation bill approved by the House last year would allow Medicare to negotiate the cost of 20 popular drugs and dozens of insulin products used by 8.5 million Medicare beneficiaries,according to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, although many of the drugs with the highest Medicare spending would be exempt.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which pushed for a more expansive bill that would have saved taxpayers an estimated $450 billion over 10 years but ultimately agreed to back the scaled-down version, set a target date of March 1 to pass the revised spending plan ahead of Biden's State of the Union address.

"This is both achievable and necessary,"CPC Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said in a statement, noting that in the weeks since negotiations had stalled out, "the case for this legislation has only become more urgent."

===

AHA  note // direct mail  dark posts neg ads  socialist medicine

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.”

----

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/oil-executives-recording-trump-access-812511/

oil executives have been reveling in all of the access and influence they now have because President Donald Trump is in office. A recording of a meeting of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) obtained by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting shows executives bragging about how they can affect change in both Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency regulations after their former lawyer, David Bernhardt, was nominated to be the number two official at Interior.

“We know [Berndardt] very well, and we have direct access to him, have conversations with him about issues ranging from federal land access to endangered species, to a lot of issues,” Dan Naatz, IPAA’s political director said, in an hour-long recording of a June 2017 meeting

...ed in 'Dozens' of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff

Bernhardt is now up for a promotion: he is Acting Secretary of the Interior and is Trump’s nominee to replace former Interior chiefRyan Zinke.

“It’s really a new thing for us,” Barry Russell, CEO of IAPP said, bragging about his upcoming meetings with Trump officials. “For example, next week I’m invited to the White House to talk about tax code. Last week we were talking to [EPA] Secretary [Scott] Pruitt, and in about two weeks we have a meeting with [Interior] Secretary Zinke. So we have unprecedented access to people that are in these positions who are trying to help us, which is great, "

russell also laughed recalling a meeting with then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt where Pruitt’s staff wrote down Russell’s criticisms of the EPA.

“Scott Pruitt, he came from Oklahoma, and we have a lot of friends in common and I thought that’s what we were going to talk about, we did that for about three minutes,” Russell said. “And then he started asking very technical questions about methane, about ozone… And what was really great is there was aboutfour or five EPA staffers there, who were all like, ‘Write that down, write that down,’ all the way through this. And when we left, I said that was just our overview.”

This prompted the audience to laugh at how easy it was for Russell to influence policy.

“So it’s really a new world for us and very, very helpful,” Russell concluded.

On the recording, the executives also discussed a “wish list” they drafted and gave to the administration detailing EPA regulations they wanted rolled back, including removing fracking regulations that protect water sources; limits on methane gas releases; restoration of publicly-owned land harmed by the oil industry and regulations to protect migratory bird populations. Each of those requests was granted.

Nada Culver, senior counsel for the Wilderness Society environmental group, told Reveal: “The IPAA’s wish list was granted as asked, in the executive order, and in the actions taken by the Department of the Interior. It pains me to say it.”

And, of course, with Bernhardt’s confirmation hearings approaching, groups like IAPP stand to gain even more as their access and influence within the Trump Administration grows.

===

----

rev dr pelosi

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/443724-ex-pelosi-staffers-in-demand-on-k-street

2019

businesses and trade groups are turning to former aides to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as they look to push their priorities in the Democratic House.

Seventeen former Pelosi staffers were active registered lobbyists during the first quarter of 2019, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

And the two top lobbying shops for the first quarter of the year, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, both boast former Pelosi aides: Arshi Siddiqui, a former senior policy adviser, and Nadeam Elshami, a former chief of staff, respectively.

Former Pelosi staffers in the influence world found themselves in the spotlight after she regained the Speaker's gavel. But even as K Street enjoys a financial bump under President Trump and a Democratic House, former staffers' ties to the most powerful Democratic leader in Washington also bring tough questions.

The Democratic base is increasingly pushing back on the influence world — and 2020 candidates are disavowing lobbyist or corporate special influence money. Pelosi has accepted PAC donations and lobbyist money, though the numbers amount to a tiny fraction of the massive haul the prodigious fundraiser brings in for her party.

Pelosi's office did not comment for this story.

The new scrutiny on lobbyists in Democratic circles doesn't appear to be affecting work downtown for former Pelosi aides, as first quarter numbers remained strong.

“Our clients want results and are much more savvy than to think one policymaker, no matter how important, can unilaterally save the day,” Siddiqui, who left Pelosi's office in 2010 after seven years and has been a partner at Akin Gump for nine, told The Hill.

Sources who talked to The Hill said Pelosi, who has been House Democratic leader since 2003, has never had the reputation of a K Street creature. They said Pelosi doesn't have regular meetings with former staffers-turned-lobbyists, unlike many other lawmakers.

“She has a national base of support and a national network of experts that can be relied on for a range of topics. It helps to be from California, where there is every kind of industry, every academic institution, state and local governments,” a lobbyist told The Hill.

“Pelosi staff who go downtown are hired because they are super smart and know how things work, not because they have special access to her,” a former Democratic House aide told the Hill.

Still, former Pelosi aides who become lobbyists are seen at the top of their game and touted for their connections to Capitol Hill.

“Former Speaker Pelosi aides working as lobbyists are probably fully aware that their relationship with the Speaker doesn’t guarantee them any support or nonsupport when it comes to legislative priorities," a Democratic lobbyist told The Hill.

But the lobbyist acknowledged that a "working relationship with the Speaker’s office would be more helpful than not when it comes to flagging important matters for staff to be aware of."

“Speaker Pelosi is a strong leader, and it make sense that firms want to project that they have strong ties to her whether they move the needle on issues or not,” a former House aide who is now a lobbyist told The Hill.

“Experience suggests that Speaker Pelosi will only do what is in her party’s and constituents’ interest, but big firms want to market the perception that they provide access to the Speaker.”

Democrats under Pelosi have also pushed an ambitious series of electoral and money reforms, the first dubbed H.R. 1, which passed the House in March. The bills are dead in the GOP-controlled Senate but had many on K Street worried about tough new restrictions on lobbying.

“Speaker Pelosi passed H.R. 1 to start the Congress because it was a top priority for Democrats during the campaign last year. Democrats believe this was an important step to restoring confidence and accountability in our elections and in Washington," another former House aide-turned-lobbyist told The Hill. "The last thing on her mind was how this might affect former staffers.”

Another lobbyist said the anti-lobbying fervor among Democrats had not hurt Pelosi's reputation with former aides.

“Like more good bosses, Speaker Pelosi has a reputation for wanting to see her former staff succeed, whether inside or outside government,” the Democratic lobbyist said.

The influence of former Pelosi staffers runs deep and wide in the lobbying world.

Among Siddiqui's clients this quarter are Comcast Corporation on telecom issues, as well as CVS Health and the Business Roundtable. Elshami has been working for Johnson & Johnson, the Cannabis Trade Federation and high-speed rail industry groups.

Dean Aguillen, senior vice president at Ogilvy Government Relations, spent five years working for Pelosi, including as senior adviser and director of member services. Last quarter, he registered withPhRMA to work on prescription drug affordability, an issue on which President Trump and Pelosi are calling for reforms.

Another notable Pelosi aide-turned-lobbyist is Anne MacMillan, a partner at Invariant — Heather Podesta’s firm.

A number of former Pelosi aides also work as in-house lobbyists for high-profile companies. Alexandra Veitch, who’s alobbyist for Tesla, was a senior adviser to Pelosi; Tom Manatos, who lobbies for Spotify, was her senior adviser for member services; and Catlin O’Neill, who now works in Facebook’s Washington, D.C., office, was her chief of staff before leaving in 2013.

Amy Rosenbaum, who left Pelosi's office in 2010, went on to run legislative affairs for then-President Obama and is now at CVS Health.

In the trade association space, Michael Bloom is vice president of federal government affairs at theInternet Association. He was Pelosi’s senior adviser and left in 2017 after more than 11 years with her.

And the influence of former Pelosi aides extends beyond lobbying. Many are not registered lobbyists but do advocacy work for nonprofits or are in academia or other congressional offices.

Pelosi's second stint as Speaker is a new world for many of her old hands. The speaker must now contend with a much more vocal and empowered progressive wing, willing to challenge her on their priorities.

“Lobbying Democrats requires a mix of sound policy and politics combined with the right timing," Siddiqui told The Hill.

It was important to have a "nuanced understanding of how consensus is built in the Democratic Caucus" in her work, she added.

Aguillen said the biggest boost from working with Pelosi was "the perspective of knowing the Hill from the inside" and now being able to share that with clients.

"You are able to advise people if they are approaching an issue the right way because you understand the thinking inside the caucus,” he said.

[brendan daly? VISA?

===

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders

SECTIONS

Summary ›

Lobbying Primer ›

Trends in Spending ›

Business, Labor & Ideological Split ›

Top Spenders ›

Top Lobbying Firms ›

Ranked Sectors ›

Industries ›

Recent Registrations ›

Top Contracts ›

Top Issues ›

Top Agencies ›

Bills ›

Contributions ?

Methodology ›

Foreign Lobby Watch ›

Whether they do their own lobbying or hire it out to DC’s infamous K Street firms (and often they do both), these organizations spend the most trying to influence government policy.

2021

Top Spenders

Lobbying Client Total Spent

US Chamber of Commerce $29,630,000

National Assn of Realtors $18,133,428

PharmaceuticalResearch & Manufacturers of America $15,218,000

American Hospital Assn $12,121,176

Blue Cross/Blue Shield $12,018,300

American Medical Assn $10,880,000

Amazon.com $10,190,000

Facebook Inc $9,560,000

Business Roundtable $8,840,000

Raytheon Technologies $8,150,000

National Assn of Manufacturers $7,710,000

Lockheed Martin $7,467,350

Comcast Corp $6,720,000

Northrop Grumman $6,690,000

Pfizer Inc $6,670,000

NCTA The Internet & Television Assn $6,570,000

Biotechnology Innovation Organization $6,560,000

America's Health Insurance Plans $6,410,000

Boeing Co $6,170,000

CTIA $5,930,000 TELECOMM

===

top sectors 1998-2021

===

===

top firms 2021 (note oct)

===

2020 //

*:{

}:*

*:{

}:*

===

top issues 2021 (oct)

*:{

}:*

===

2021 Bills

===

top contributors 2021

*:{

}:*

===

top recipient 2020

*:{

}:*

Showing 1 to 25 of 100 entries

===

*Capitalizing on Conflict

February 25, 2021*

Over the last two decades, the extensive network of lobbyists and donors tied to the defense industry directed $285 million in campaign contributions and $2.5 billion in lobbying spending as they pushed the government to approve tens of billions in arms sales.

[Read more]

...Familiar faces lobbied Trump and congressional leaders on COVID-19

August 19, 2020

Powerful interests deployed former aides to President Donald Trump and top congressional leaders to influence the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

[Read more]

Racial and gender diversity in the 117th Congress

June 30, 2020

The field of candidates running for office in 2020 is the most diverse in recent history, but OpenSecrets found that the 117th Congress will be, at most, only marginally more diverse than the 116th.

[Read more]

Tracking the Personal Finances of the 116th Congress

June 11, 2020

Written after OpenSecrets broke the news of Sen. Richard Burr's controversial stock sales, this series explores the personal finances of the 116th Congress. OpenSecrets has updated its personal finaces section to include lawmakers' most recent financial disclosures.

[Read more]

Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they giving to?

November 6, 2019

Women are becoming politically engaged at an earlier point than ever before. More than 1 million women have donated to 2020 presidential candidates thus far, following the rise of fundraising participation by women in the wake of President Donald Trump's election.

But women are not a monolithic fundraising or voting bloc, and there are key differences in fundraising patterns from women in different pockets of the country. Suburban women, who power a significant electoral battleground, are a key demographic for 2020.

[Read more]

'Shadow lobbying' in Trump's Washington

October 3, 2019

Political operatives and lobbyists continue to take spins through the revolving door between government and the private sector under President Donald Trump's watch, despite his pledge to "drain the swamp."

And without action from Congress to change lobbying rules, undisclosed lobbying activities are still running rampant, an OpenSecrets analysis indicates.

[Read more]

World of Influence: A Guide to Trump's Foreign Business Interests

June 4, 2019

The Center for Responsive Politics created an in-depth report exploring President Donald Trump's international business interests and entanglements in over 30 countries across the globe. Trump's sprawling web of foreign properties and investments, which includes some projects completed during his presidency or still under development, reveals a litany of opportunities for — and apparent efforts by — foreign business leaders and governments to gain influence with the leader of the free world.

[Read more][Download PDF version]

===

*:{

}:*

*:{

https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/exxonmobil-climate-tax/

no lnx

The truth behind ExxonMobil’s claims to support a carbon tax

Elliott Negin and Independent Media Institute October 13, 2021

When then-ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy conceded in a secretly recorded video in May that the oil giant voiced support for a carbon tax only because it assumed it would never happen, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said the company was "shocked by these interviews" and stood by its "commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change."

Wood's reaction was reminiscent of Captain Louis Renault feigning surprise to discover gambling at Rick's Café in the 1942 film "Casablanca." After quietly pocketing his winnings, Renault justifies closing down the nightclub by exclaiming, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

Woods was shocked? Really? Just one look at his company's financial records would show that despite claiming to endorse a carbon tax—initially in a cynical attempt to derail a cap-and-trade bill that was under consideration in 2009—ExxonMobil has funneled millions of dollars over the last decade to lawmakers who staunchly oppose the idea.

Backing Climate Science Deniers

One tried-and-true way corporations ensure access to Congress is by making campaign contributions. Although there may not be a verifiable quid pro quo, donations guarantee access, and access guarantees influence.

So, given ExxonMobil's professed support for a carbon tax, one might reasonably assume that the company's political action committee (PAC) and employees would back lawmakers who sponsor such legislation and, over time, withdraw their funding for senators and representatives who stand in the way.

In fact, the opposite is true.

During the video interview, McCoy—who at the time was ExxonMobil's senior director of federal relations—compared lobbying Congress with fishing.

"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress," he said, "I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out…. And… [then you start to] reel them in…. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them."

The goal, he explained, is to develop a close relationship with legislative staff. "You want to be able to go to the chief… and say, look, we've got this issue, we need Congressman So-and-So to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter," he said. "You name it, we've asked for everything."

:{

}:

Not quite everything. ExxonMobil apparently has not asked for a carbon tax, notwithstanding the fact that the company was one of the founding members of the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), a bipartisan, industry-supported group, which was formed in 2017 to promote a carbon tax, and a year later, the company pledged to give $1 million over a two-year period to Americans for Carbon Dividends(AFCD), the council's lobbying arm. Over the last decade, members of both houses have voted on a handful of carbon tax-related amendments and nonbinding resolutions. In every case, a sizable majority who received donations from ExxonMobil's PAC and employees rejected the idea. For example:

In March 2015, the Senate voted 58 to 42 to pass a budget amendment prohibiting a carbon tax. Thirty of the 40 senators who had received ExxonMobil campaign contributions since 2010, including amendment sponsor Roy Blunt (R-MO), voted in favor of the prohibition.

In June 2016, the House passed a resolution introduced by Steve Scalise (R-LA) stating that a carbon tax "would be detrimental to American families and businesses" by a 237 to 163 margin. Eighty-five percent of the House members who voted for the resolution had received ExxonMobil political donationssince 2013. By contrast, only 26 of the representatives who voted against the resolution—16 percent—had received ExxonMobil money.

:{

}:

In July 2018, the House passed another Scalise-sponsored resolution asserting that "a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy," this time by a 229 to 180 vote. During the 2018 election cycle, 75 percent of the representatives who gave the resolution a thumbs up received ExxonMobil donations. Only 23 percent of the 180 who voted against it got ExxonMobil funding.

:{

}:

The disparity between ExxonMobil's PAC donations to supporters of the July 2018 Scalise resolution and its opponents is even more telling, given that PACs—which can contribute as much as $10,000 to a candidate per two-year cycle—more accurately represent a company's agenda than that of individual employees. The ExxonMobil PAC contributed more than $935,000 to 74 percent of the resolution's supporters, but only $109,500 to opponents during the 2018 election cycle. Scalise, the resolution's sponsor, and 37 of his 48 resolution cosponsors received ExxonMobil PAC contributions.

:{

}:

The most recent congressional carbon tax vote took place in the Senate in February during a round of votes on the pandemic relief bill. John Hoeven (R-ND) sponsored an amendment that would have prohibited such a tax. It was rejected on a strict party-line vote: All 50 Republican senators voted for the amendment; all 50 Democratic senators voted no.

ExxonMobil PAC donations to those senators are mostly party-line, too. Twenty-seven of the 50 Republicans collectively have received $233,000 during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles. Over that same time frame, the PAC contributed just $62,000 to 11 of the Democrats.

Snubbing Carbon Tax Proponents

In January 2018, ExxonMobil Vice President of Public and Government Affairs Suzanne McCarron reaffirmed the company's support for a carbon tax, the Paris climate agreement and other related climate policies in a blog post on the company's website. ExxonMobil, she maintained, is "committed to being part of the solution."

Nevertheless, during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, ExxonMobil employees and its PAC donated nearly $834,000 to 28 of the 30 senators and 90 of the 109 representatives currently in Congress who, according to the Center for American Progress, still reject the scientific consensus that global temperatures are rising and that burning fossil fuels is largely to blame. The company's PAC funded 16 of the climate science deniers in the Senate and 81 in the House.

Lawmakers sponsoring carbon tax legislation, meanwhile, have enjoyed considerably less support. Over the last two election cycles, climate science deniers in the 117th Congress received six and a half times more from ExxonMobil than carbon tax proponents.

Two carbon tax bills have been introduced in the Senate this session, both byDemocrats: one sponsored by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, which has nine cosponsors, the other by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. Three carbon tax bills have been introduced in the House: one sponsored by Pennsylvania's Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick with one cosponsor, another by Connecticut's Democratic Rep. John Larson with two cosponsors, and a third by Florida's Democratic Rep. Theodore Deutch with 84 cosponsors.

:{

}:

Since 2017, ExxonMobil employees and the company PAC have donated only $127,692 to these carbon tax proponents: $35,486 to eight of the 11 sponsors and cosponsors in the Senate and $92,206 to 33 of the 90 sponsors and cosponsors in the House. The PAC contributed to only three of the senators and 12 of the representatives.

Despite this decidedly lopsided funding pattern, McCoy insisted during the interview that ExxonMobil wants to work with lawmakers on carbon tax legislation. "Put forth a bill and we'll show you that we'll support that bill, we'll help you work on that bill," he said. But, he added, "Nobody wants to do that because it's not politically expedient to put forth a tax for people, it just isn't."

In fact, a number of lawmakers have "put forth a bill" to establish a carbon tax in successive congressional sessions, but the company has shown no support, and neither McCoy nor ExxonMobil's other in-house lobbyists have broached the topic with members of Congress since 2018—the same year it announced its $1 million donation to the Climate Leadership Council's lobbying arm, AFCD—according to ExxonMobil's quarterly lobbying reports.

Staffers working for Rep. Larson and Sen. Whitehouse, who both have been sponsoring carbon tax legislation for years, recently verified that ExxonMobil has not expressed support for their respective proposals. Larson introduced a bill in 2009, the same year that ExxonMobil announced that it favored the policy, while Whitehouse first sponsored one in 2014 and has reintroduced a version of it in every session since.

Out of frustration, Whitehouse and his fellow bill sponsor, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, sent a letter to ExxonMobil in August 2016 criticizing the company for its indifference.

"Regarding ExxonMobil's alleged seven years of support for a carbon fee, we've seen no meaningful evidence of that," the senators wrote. "None of the top executives that make up ExxonMobil's management team has expressed interest in meeting with any of us to discuss the Whitehouse-Schatz proposal or any carbon fee legislation."

Five years later, nothing has changed on that front. A Whitehouse spokesperson says his office is not aware of ExxonMobil supporting any carbon pricing legislation, let alone the senator's.

But McCoy's revelations did have consequences: The Climate Leadership Council kicked ExxonMobil out of the organization in August; the Union of Concerned Scientists and other public interest groups cited McCoy's comments in a "friend of the court" brief filed in Minnesota's climate science deception lawsuit against ExxonMobil; and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform asked McCoy to testify about his company's campaign to mislead the public "about the dangers of fossil fuels and their role in causing global climate change."

As for McCoy's job status, an ExxonMobil spokesperson told E&E News in late September that "McCoy no longer works for the company."

If McCoy does wind up testifying before Congress, he would serve as the opening act for a hearing that the Oversight Committee plans to hold on October 28 featuring his former boss Darren Woods and top executives from other major oil and gas companies. Finally, under oath, Woods and his colleagues will have to answer questions about their decades-long effort to block government action on climate.

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

McConnell 'prays' for Manchin and Sinema to help him defeat Biden ... ›

New report details a 'massive lobbying blitz' against Biden's agenda ... ›

'We've asked for everything': Top oil lobbyist caught on tape ... ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

ExxonMobil gives $1 million to promote a carbon tax-and-dividend ... ›

Exxon's carbon tax proposal: there's a big catch - Vox ›

ExxonMobil lobbyists filmed saying oil giant's support for carbon tax ... ›

}:*

===

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-assn-of-realtors/summary?all=2020&id=D000000062

OS 1021

facebook maintained big lobbying expenses ahead of Senate hearing on teen social media use

By Isaiah PoritzOctober 1, 2021

Facebook spent $9.5 million on federal lobbying in the first half of 2021 as the company comes under increased scrutiny by Congress.

===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/corporate-scheme-biden-agenda/

common dr

Corporations threatened by the prospect of paying a slightly higher tax rate and exercising a little less power over working people are spending millions to sabotage a far-reaching Democratic reconciliation bill that would expand the social safety net and bolster climate action.

That's according to Behind the Curtain: The Corporate Plot to Upend Democracy, a new report released Wednesday by People's Action, a nationwide network of groups organizing for social justice, and Dēmos, a progressive think tank.

"While everyday people are calling on Congress to put people first and safeguard their basic rights to housing, healthcare, and a clean environment, corporations are prioritizing profits and working hard to preserve an inequitable status quo," Dēmos senior policy analyst Daniella Zessoules said in a statement. "As we've witnessed throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, this greed hits Black, brown, and low-income people hardest."

The report exposes how corporations are trying to ensure that the United States' wealthiest and most powerful entities "can reap obscene profits year after year at our expense" and "keep our elected officials from taking action to restore communities."

Just 20 corporations or industry groups—keen to preserve nearly $2.3 trillion in tax cuts the GOP passed in 2017and to make permanent billionaires' $1.8 trillion pandemic windfall—have spent more than $201 million in lobbying so far this year, the report finds. Much of that corporate cash has been aimed at derailing progressive provisions in the popular and potentially historic tax reform and spending package that would invest up to $3.5 trillion over a decade to strengthen the welfare state and decarbonize the economy.

Although the reconciliation bill encapsulates the agenda demanded by tens of millions of voters who elected President Joe Biden and put Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, an ongoing "power grab"—led by several corporations and trade associations that represent them, such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Realtors Asscoaition, and supported by aligned right-wing lawmakers—has put its passage in jeopardy, the report notes.

"We pulled the curtain back on corporate America to find they were trying to put Congress in a headlock," People's Action campaign director Sondra Youdelman said in a statement. "Now, Congress needs to do its job, fight these bullies, and pass a budget package for the people."

While "corporate influence to stop progressive change is nothing new," the report states, "the concentration of wealth and monopoly powers in recent years has added fuel to the flame."

"Corporate America wants to keep profits high and taxes low forever," adds the report. "They simply don't want to pay their fair share. That's why they're throwing millions of dollars into lobbying, campaigns, and political advertising to divide us and get legislators to back their agenda of permanent inequality."

The report highlights anti-democratic corporate spending and opposition to the Build Back Better Act's proposed reforms in the following six key issue areas, all of which are backed by a majority in the U.S.: increasing taxes on corporations and the ultra-rich, lowering drug prices, providing affordable healthcare, investing in public and affordable housing, tackling climate change, and providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people.

For each issue area, the report explains measures included in the reconciliation package, shows polling results indicating popular support for the proposed investments and policies, and details what corporations are doing to obstruct the bill's passage.

According to the report:

• Over two-thirds of voters support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations;
• Nearly 90% of adults want the government to negotiate lower drug prices;
• A majority of voters want the federal government to reduce healthcare costs and expand coverage;
• A majority of voters want the federal government to increase the supply of nonprofit and publicly owned homes;
• Two-thirds of adults think the federal government is not doing enough to mitigate the climate crisis; and
• Almost 70% of voters support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

And yet—even though the Build Back Better Act would take steps toward meeting the needs of millions of Americans who are facing rampant tax injustices, the world's highest prescription drug prices, skyrocketing healthcare costs and lack of insurance, evictions and foreclosures, extreme weather disasters, or the threat of deportation—corporations have vehemently fought against the reconciliation bill.

Leading offenders include Anthem, JPMorgan Chase, FedEx, Walmart, Exxon, Amazon, Pfizer, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, the report finds. Big Pharma and private health insurance companies have spent $171 million so far in 2021 on lobbying, the most of any industry.

As the report notes:

*Rich corporations are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the American people from getting what they want: a government that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few. Their massive use of corporate power to frustrate the will of the people on an issue-by-issue basis is part of a larger anti-democracy effort backed by corporate America.

As corporations seek to undermine the Biden plan's much-needed tax provisions, historic investments in drug pricing reform, healthcare, housing, climate, and immigration reform, they are also attacking our freedom to vote. Many of the same companies combating elements of the Build Back Better proposal are also bankrolling voter suppression legislation.*

"Now we know who the real villains are behind the curtain, who want to keep our communities from getting what we need and deserve," the report concludes. "Corporations and the wealthy few are undermining our democracy. They are lobbying hard to preserve an unequal status quo, using money to steer government rather than allow a real democracy to bring about what the people overwhelmingly want—a country that works for all of us."

The report's publication coincides with a National Day of Actionduring which People's Action members plan to hold rallies denouncing opponents of the Build Back Better Act for undermining the well-being of the nation's economy and democracy.

Following Tuesday's action against JPMorgan in New York, demonstrations against these organizations are planned for Wednesday:

• Greater Des Moines Partnership in Iowa;
• FedEx in West Virginia;
• Anthem in Indiana;
• Blue Cross Blue Shield Anthem in New Hampshire;
• Blue Cross Blue Shield in Illinois;
• Ajax Pavement Industries: Flint Asphalt Plant in Michigan;
• Amazon in Colorado;
• National Realtors Association in Delaware and New York; and
• PhRMA in Idaho. [vaxxers unite!]

"We can't call the U.S. the greatest democracy in the world if our legislators allow a handful of corporations to derail the critical and wildly popular provisions in the Build Back Better package," Lisa Tyson, director of the Long Island Progressive Coalition, said in a statement (pdf).

"These companies are lining politicians' pockets in hopes of securing a future of extreme inequality and climate catastrophe," Tyson added. "It's time for lawmakers to grow spines and show us who they work for: the people, not massive corporations."

===

===