EDELMAN 3 BLUE

see main edelman PR

outed --> defectors?

nOTABLE DEPARTURES: Three senior staffers in Edelman’s Washington office, Peter Segall, Jeff Surrell and Erica Noble, have left the mammoth public relations firm in recent months, POLITICO’s Daniel Lippman reports. Segall was a managing director, and Surrell and Noble were executive vice presidents. Segall is now a senior public affairs and strategic communications counselor at JPStrategies LLC, according to his LinkedIn profile. Surrell has started his own firm, Shot Point Strategies. “I’ll be concentrating on public affairs and reputation management work for companies, associations, colleges & universities, etc.,” he wrote in an email to PI. And Noble is now associate director for global company communications at Procter & Gamble.

1/24 CALLED OUT SOME BAD ACTOR? GIVING PR BIZ BAD REP?

---

GMAIL 1 24

I posted something on LinkedIn recently (I know, look what Elon has driven us all to), about the roots of the PR industry. Specifically I said something about Edward Bernays, one of the forefathers of modern PR, and in fact the guy who named the industry back in the 1940s. It was a rebrand, to be more precise. What we now know of as PR had previously been referred to as propaganda. Bernays came up with "counsel on public relations" because, as he put it, the Germans had given propaganda a bad name.

Some guy who works for a PR trade association was quick to comment: "PR has come a long way since Bernays, just like journalism has." Nice try dude, I'm perfectly comfortable saying they've both gotten much worse. Back in Bernays' day, Ida fucking Tarbell was around! So was Ida B. Wells, Upton Sinclair, legend after journalistic legend giving industrialists and politicians hell. In fact, it's partly because the journalism back then was so good that PR had to become increasingly diabolical. And in a lot of ways, the rise of PR has materially contributed to the demise of good journalism.

What I don't think most people realize, and what that PR industry spokesperson would probably prefer they didn't, is that PR is still very much propaganda, except now it also has the sort of distribution mechanism Bernays only dreamed of, compliments of social media. To even hope to combat it, we first have to understand what exactly we're dealing with here. At its most basic, PR is the management of a company or industry's relationship with various "publics." Those publics consist of a company's customers, broader cultural influencers, politicians, journalists, teachers, thought leaders, other industries, competitors, potential hires, employees, investors, shareholders, the list goes on and on. With each of these publics, the company or industry is trying to elicit a particular behavior—they want you to buy their thing, or vote for a particular policy or, if you're a politician, maybe they want you to advocate for or against regulatory changes of some kind.

:{PR firms help companies do all of that. They set up photo opps for their clients to be seen amongst particular crowds of people, arrange speaking engagements at the right conferences, set up meetings with diplomats and tech leaders, and advise on philanthropic strategies.

So when, for example, Charles Koch began investing millions in MIT to fund research that would later underpin policies locking in support for natural gas and then carbon capture in the U.S., it's entirely possible that his foundation's PR firm, Edelman, was advising on that strategy. We've covered before how PR firms carefully crafted the persona of Al Jaber, and helped to successfully position the UAE to win its COP28 hosting bid. This is work that goes way beyond sending out press releases or occasionally meeting with journalists, these are information warfare tactics. And for good reason. The founders of most of today's top PR firms got their training in military intelligence and psychological warfare (for real!) then put that knowledge to work on behalf of corporations looking for an end-run around democracy.}:

In their relationship with the media, too, the PR industry is far from blameless. The relentless onslaught of corporate PR over the past century or more has fundamentally warped our information ecosystem. Now everyone has to deploy PR tactics to get information out; NGOs use the same techniques (and sometimes the same firms) that oil majors do. So do government agencies. And journalists who have or take the time to do their own research, find their own stories, develop their own sources, are few and far between.

"I don't think most people realize how close the media is to strategic comms," Melissa Aronczyk, media studies professor at Rutgers University told me a long time ago. "Most of the time when we see climate change in the news it's because an organization has tried to push that story. That type of source relationship between PR and media is really under-recognized when we talk about the influence of these firms. Most people have never heard of Edelman or whoever, but they're the intermediaries between what is known scientifically and what we find out about."

By and large, PR firms are the people responsible for how information on everything from climate science to wellness trends is presented to the public.

"It's one thing to look at Exxon's dumb ads, where it's so obvious that they're speaking out both sides of their mouth, and go okay that's disinformation, that's bad," Aronczyk said. "It's much more nefarious to say the government of California has a new private relationship with a company to develop solutions to climate change, and then all the information we get about that comes through a PR firm. How climate is seen as a problem and what solutions are possible, that's all framed by PR. It's often framed as like these bad guys spread falsehoods and once that goes away we'll act. But PR is now baked into the media ecosystem we live in."

When I look at climate coverage, I mostly know which stories have been placed by a PR person, either at a company or at an NGO or government agency, and most weeks I'd say only about 10 percent haven't passed through the PR machine before they get to you, the reader.

And yet, the industry has faced very little criticism. A former Edelman staffer I spoke to recently told me he's shocked at how little scrutiny or criticism PR gets for its role in climate delay. "I don't know why it's only the Exxons of the world getting criticized for greenwashing when really we're the ones who invented it," he said.

"PR underlies the entire information ecosystem," Aronczyk said. "And they're part of the climate disinformation problem – they're creating information too, it's not just Exxon."

That "information" ranges from "research" like Edelman's Trust Barometer, which coincidentally lends credibility to the authoritarian governments the firm represents every year, to opinion pieces written by agency copywriters for various thought leaders, to surveys that generate misleading results to astroturfing and completely staged protests. If a company doesn't already have the information or the story they want a PR firm to take to the media, the firm will create that story. The most famous example is Bernays staging a "women's lib" march in New York with women he had hired to march up and down the street demanding the right to smoke, because his tobacco company client wanted to break down the taboo on women smoking so they could sell more cigarettes.

Industry funding of particular academics is effectively PR too, or strategic communications. It not only helps companies shape the way future politicians and business leaders view the economy, the environment, and the relationship between the two, but also locks in particular "solutions" before anyone who doesn't work for an oil company has been able to figure out which technologies might be best positioned to address the climate crisis. Industry-funded research is often the first step toward lobbying, providing a credible foundation for politicians arguments that, for example, carbon capture is a great thing for the U.S. government to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in. Despite the great work of groups like Campus Climate Network and multiple whistleblower accounts, that influence remains relatively obscure.

:{Sometimes it's the more innocuous examples that make the penny drop for folks about just how insidious and dangerous PR can be. Lately I've been talking about the viral TikTok "butter board" trend. The "recipe" was created by a popular food influencer, Justine Doiron. It's essentially a charcuterie board, but instead of meat, the board is smeared with butter, then topped with salt, herbs, spices, whatever you like, and served with warm, crusty bread. It was a massive hit, with millions of views, which then generated a whole media cycle.

The New York Times covered it, the Today Show ran a segment on it. Every food blog posted tutorials on how to do it. None of them knew that the whole trend was entirely manufactured by Dairy Management Inc, the marketing arm of the U.S. dairy industry, and their PR firm, Edelman. Doiron was part of the "Dream Team" of influencers that Edelman, DMI's long-standing PR agency, helped pull together. In their end-of-the-year report, DMI noted that the "Dairy Dream Team of chefs, recipe developers, foodies, gamers and lifestyle influencers delivered nearly 80 million impressions and jump-started the “butter board” craze that became a viral sensation, generating coverage from major news and entertainment outlets."}:

Big Dairy is deploying tactics like this in large part because they are losing market share to plant-based alternatives, and because they're scared about animal ag being the next big target for climate action. Lucky for them, the PR industry has already honed its craft on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

---

This Week's Climate Must-Reads

• How Wealthy Corporations Use Investment Agreements to Extract Millions From Developing Countries (Nicholas Kusnetz and Katie Surma for Inside Climate News) - A terrific story on the horror that is the investor-state dispute system. We've covered the issues with ISDS a lot (if you want an explainer, here's one); here, Kusnetz and Surma show how devastating it is for people living in countries on the losing end of this system.
• How Fossil Fuels Found Their Influencers (Adam Lowenstein for Lever News) - Lever is consistently doing great climate reporting and here they did justice to a story I myself had a hard time figuring out how to approach: what the heck the Edelman Trust Barometer is and why it's gained such influence in the world (the latest one was just released, as it is every year, at the World Economic Forum in Davos).
• Here's How Much Democrats Get Paid to Shill for Fossil Fuels (Arielle Samuelson for Heated) - Our pals Emily and Arielle at Heated tearing it up as usual. Here, Arielle got the receipts on two former Democratic lawmakers—Senators Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) and Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)—who made six-figure salaries promoting methane gas as a climate solution.
• ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news(Miranda Green for Floodlight/The Guardian) - This Floodlight investigation found that Alabama Power runs a news service and its foundation bought a Black newspaper. Neither reports on high electric bills or utility-related pollution.
• Davos Puts Climate on the Backburner (David Gelles for The New York Times) - This story almost made me throw up in my mouth but that's kinda the point. We need to understand how absolutely unserious the wealthy are about doing anything at all about the climate crisis.

---

https://cleancreatives.org/learn

Case studies of misleading campaigns:

United States: Exxon Exxchange

Under the Biden Administration, the United States federal government has undertaken a number of climate policies that affect the business of major polluters, such as limiting fossil fuel extraction permits from public lands, re-instituting a ‘social cost of carbon’ for the purposes of environmental permitting, and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. In addition, they’ve backed major legislation that could transform the energy system to better address climate change.

In response, energy giant ExxonMobil has aggressively targeted the Biden Administration through its “Exxchange” platform, which uses digital ads on Facebook to encourage Americans to oppose these measures. Throughout 2021, Exxon has regularly been the top spender on climate issues across Facebook, and their total ad spending on the Exxchange likely extends into the millions of dollars. 

:{

}:

Previously, Harris Media, a Texas-based PR firm that often works for far-right politicians in the United States and elsewhere has taken responsibility for managing the Exxchange project. 

:{

}:

However, a coding error preserved on archive.org also reveals that PR giant Edelman has played a role in managing the site, and likely other aspects of the campaign as well. A link on the preserved site includes a Microsoft SafeLinks URL containing the email address with an edelman.com domain. This SafeLinks URL could have only been generated by an Edelman employee and appears to have been mistakenly embedded in the site.It demonstrates that Edelman has had direct control over the site and its content, at least up until May of 2021.

Edelman has not previously disclosed their work on this project.

lnx

“Exxchange” platform, which uses :{digital ads on Facebook:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}: to encourage Americans to oppose these measures. Throughout 2021, Exxon has regularly been the top spender on climate issues across Facebook, and their total ad spending on the Exxchange likely extends into the millions of dollars.

Previously, Harris Media, a Texas-based PR firm that often works for far-right politicians in the United States and elsewhere has :{taken responsibility:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}: for managing the Exxchange project.

However, a coding error :{preserved on archive.org:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}: also reveals that PR giant Edelman has played a role in managing the site, and likely other aspects of the campaign as well.

surveys what have YOU done? recycle eg up to 1 mill jobs at risk; tax hikes on mtg cost jobs [aa woman] take the pledge to support power of state ind = jobs...

ad library

https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=US&view_all_page_id=925007000949719&search_type=page&media_type=all

ref 2

https://inthesetimes.com/article/exxon-facebook-instagram-advertising-fracking-climate-fossil-fuels

no lnx pix gfx? italics

INVESTIGATION GOODMAN INSTITUTE CLIMATE

Exxon Spends Millions on Facebook To Keep the Fossil Fuel Industry Alive

Aided by a right-wing political consulting firm, the company is rallying supporters to fight for oil and gas interests at every level of government.

CHRISTINE MACDONALDOCTOBER 20, 2020

https://inthesetimes.com/article/exxon-facebook-instagram-advertising-fracking-climate-fossil-fuels

In January 2019, an outfit called Santa Barbara for Safe and Local Transport (SBSLT) began running social media advertisements for select California residents. SBSLT’s name and logo — showcasing distant green mountains, a sliver of blue ocean and a highway slicing through them — could be mistaken for that of a typical grassroots group or a governmental highway agency. In reality, SBSLT is part of a campaign by the giant oil corporation Exxon Mobil to change public sentiment about its offshore drilling in California’s Central Coast.

Exxon closed down its local offshore oil platforms in 2015, after a broken pipeline led to the catastrophic Refugio oil spill. Without that pipeline, Exxon has no way to move the oil it pumps from its offshore platforms. As a temporary replacement, the company wants to run oil trucks overland to refineries in central California.

Public support is not on Exxon’s side — a fall 2019 poll found 51% of county residents oppose Exxon’s trucking plan (compared with 32% supporting), and surveys show a majority of Californians oppose more offshore drilling — which might explain why SBSLT has paid for dozens of social media ads over the past two years. The ads have appeared on the screens of California Facebook and Instagram users around 3 million times, and often feature racially diverse school children and coverall-clad oil workers. The ads, of course, offer support for Exxon’s overland trucking plan.

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors will decide Exxon’s local fate, likely next year, but the Santa Barbara ad blitz is just one front in Exxon’s digital politicking onslaught — with battles taking place nationwide. The strategy suggests Exxon is girding for a prolonged fight to secure its increasingly tenuous ​“social license” to operate, despite the dire predictions of how continued fossil fuel business-as-usual is transforming the planet.

[A December 2019 Facebook ad suggests that restarting ExxonMobil's Santa Ynez Unit off the California Central Coast would increase local school funding, due to Exxon's property tax contributions. Santa Barbara for Safe and Local Transport spent between $5,000 and $6,000 to promote this ad. Local activists dispute whether offshore drilling is a safe or reliable source of property tax revenue. (Source: Facebook Ad Library)]

An In These Times investigation, supported by a year-long fellowship from the Leonard C. Goodman Institute for Investigative Reporting, examined 11,622 Exxon social media ads containing around 350 distinct messages that ran in the two-year period from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020, and appeared on U.S. Facebook and Instagram users’ screens as many as 265 million times. Facebook (which owns Instagram) has allowed access to the ads it serves through its Ad Library since May 2018, created by Facebook after a number of transparency scandals. In These Times used Python scripts made publicly available by Facebook Research to search and download Ad Library data, then developed custom scripts to analyze and aggregate regional and demographic data. (The full methodology is publicly available here.)

Exxon has spent more than any other major corporation on ​“social issues, elections, or politics” Facebook ads (outside of Facebook itself), and is the country’s ninth-largest buyer of such ads overall: $15.6 million from May 7, 2018, to October 8, 2020. Almost every other top spender is an organization related to presidential campaigning. The top 100 pages are primarily politicians, nonprofits and other mission-driven organizations: The only major corporation outside of Exxon, Facebook and Instagram is Goldman Sachs, which spent less than a quarter of Exxon’s total.

In These Times examined about $10 million of that Exxon ad spend, a potent complement to the more than $23 million Exxon reportedly spent to directly lobby lawmakers in 2018 and 2019, and the $203 million it spent on traditional TV, radio, print and outdoor ads from June 2018 to June 2020, according to data compiled by Kantar Media’s AdSpender.

Digital advertising is ​“a very powerful tool to accelerate a range of strategies and tactics that [Exxon] already ha[s],” says Edward Collins, director of corporate lobbying at InfluenceMap, a London-based organization that analyzes and reports on how corporations influence climate policies. Through Facebook, Exxon can target its ads to users related to a particular region, demographic or other variable, communicating directly with any Facebook user who fits the company’s profile of who might be easily persuaded. Using techniques typically seen from activist groups and political campaigns, the ads then ask viewers to sign petitions, take surveys and contact lawmakers in support of Exxon, on issues from fracking to trade.

In many ways, this type of ad campaign on social media is more akin to lobbying or political organizing than advertising, and Exxon has worked with right-wing consulting firm Harris Media, a frequent collaborator with Republican electoral campaigns. Some states do require social media campaigns to be reported as lobbying efforts. Exxon tells In These Times it discloses all of its lobbying activities as required, but experts say inconsistent laws and enforcement means those requirements are generally scant.

“The oil and gas industry is THE engine that powers America’s economy. Take action against ineffective, unnecessary regulations!”

“The U.S. Department of the Interior is close to releasing the next iteration of its five-year offshore leasing plan. Opening these additional areas to drilling will enable the U.S. to access a greater portion of its significant energy resource potential.”

America’s resurgent energy industry has achieved something few thought possible a decade ago - we are the world’s #1 energy producer! SIGN YOUR NAME: Support America’s strong energy industry!

“SURVEY:The energy industry has been the backbone of America for decades. Do you think it’s important to keep our American energy industry strong? Sign your name today!”

“Pipelines support more than 500,000 jobs in the United States. Defend them!”

Many of the Facebook and Instagram ads examined for this story include calls to action, such as a survey or petition. One of Exxon’s biggest campaigns, for example, told Facebook users to contact their lawmakers to support the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (commonly known as NAFTA) that President Donald Trump ratified earlier this year. Through the new agreement, the oil industry successfully lobbied for special protection allowing it to circumvent Mexico’s court system and use international arbitration in the event of an investment dispute. The campaign even had its own form letter to email to lawmakers. Exxon spent as much as $1.3 million on the campaign ads, appearing on users’ screens as many as 21.4 million times.

Because Facebook only publicly reports ad impressions — the number of times an ad appears, including multiple views by the same person — it is unclear how many people actually acted on the campaign. Facebook also only offers a range of spending and impressions for each ad, rather than an exact amount. For example, on Dec. 20, 2019, Exxon published a series of ads with the text, ​“Pipelines support more than 500,000 jobs in the United States. Defend them!” For each individual post, Facebook provides a range for spending (for instance, $300 to $399) and impressions (for instance, 7,000 to 8,000). (The lower range is not reported on some ads, so this article presents the upper range unless otherwise noted.)

Even if people do not click an ad or sign a petition, Collins says, the ads ​“are probably still having an impact, especially if you are seeing it more than a few times — it’s like any other advertisement, after all.”

When users do click, they are often sent to one of Exxon’s digital organizing websites. Exxchange​.com, for example, is Exxon’s ​“advocacy community portal” complete with its own app for smartphones. Before reaching a promised petition, however, users must offer up their personal contact information, building Exxon’s database of supporters.

Exxon declined to comment on how many people have signed up — Exxon says only that the Exxchange is ​“made up of energy supporters across the country” and ​“its broad membership is representative of the economic benefits of oil and natural gas in local communities across the nation.” But an ad that ran twice in March 2019 provides a clue. The ads are thank-yous for joining the Exxchange, suggesting they were served primarily to Exxchange members. According to Facebook data, the ads recorded 40,000 impressions, and more than 85% of those who saw the ad were older than 55.

Exxon posted two ads in March 2019 thanking users for joining the Exxchange. (Source: Facebook Ad Library)

NationBuilder is a nonpartisan digital campaign startup company whose platform is the go-to technology for conservative and Republican causes, including the 2016 Trump campaign — and Exxchange.

NationBuilder (and similar companies favored by liberal causes) makes it quick and inexpensive for political campaigns to map detailed intelligence about, and maintain close contact with, supporters. These digital tools have transformed fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts by giving organizers targeted information about registered voters in every state. According to Exxon, the oil company ​“is just one of a number of corporations, associations and nonprofits that utilize digital grassroots advocacy as a necessary communications tool.”

The Exxchange website is built on NationBuilder and was developed by an employee of Harris Media. That company is run by Republican consultant Vincent Harris, once dubbed in Bloomberg as ​“the man who invented the Republican Internet.” Harris presides over Harris Media in Austin, which develops digital campaigns from video to ghost tweets and text messages for clients. Harris emerged as an online savant during Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s 2012 primary race and has since continued his work with some of the most conservative Republicans in the country, including (briefly) the Trump 2016 campaign.

Harris’ clients have included Secure America Now, which calls itself a nonpartisan group dedicated to bringing ​“critical security issues to the forefront of the American debate” and has counted among its board of directors former Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee and national security firebrand John Bolton. The Secure America Now website features, among other things, anti-immigrant rhetoric and a conservative podcast series with such guests as former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

In another case, Exxon hired Harris Media for a campaign to help defeat an anti-fracking ballot measure in Colorado in 2018, known as Proposition 112. The Exxon Mobil Colorado Issue Committee paid Harris Media $40,000 for that campaign alone, according to records on file with the Colorado Secretary of State, and paid Facebook as much as $20,000 to run the created ads. Those ads created more than a million impressions on targeted Colorado residents.

In another industry crossover, Rachel Cross, Exxon’s digital and social media advisor since April 2020, is a former Harris employee. Before that, she worked for Americans for Prosperity, a political arm of the Koch brothers.

Abroad, the U.K.-based nonprofit group Privacy International has called out Harris Media for its ​“virulent” online ads with ​“law and order” themes during a 2017 presidential campaign in Kenya, where at least 33 people were killed in election violence. The organization also documented Harris Media’s work for extreme right-wing parties in Germany and France and with Israel’s Likud government.

Lucy Purdon, acting policy director at Privacy International, says Harris Media is part of ​“a whole ecosystem of companies that are all using this tactic of data collection, profiling and microtargeting in order to reach certain audiences.” She adds, ​“There is no transparency and no accountability.”

“Look, how do you build a database?” Harris told Politico in a 2015 profile, explaining his methods. ​“You build a database with enthusiasm. How do you build enthusiasm? With a message. How do you push a message? With social media.”

In a 2018 presentation at a meeting of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Harris lamented how progressive politicians and advocacy groups like Earthjustice were shaping the narrative around the oil industry on social media. On the subsequent slides he laid out the way to neutralize critics and rally support:

“Before an issue arises Find OUR people, recruit OUR people, and educate them”

“Using a bot to get physical address”

“Activate your folks with tangible advocacy actions to sort and segment the database ahead of an issue”

Harris Media did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Exxon’s use of social media to lobby the public goes way beyond the rest of the industry.

As GOP digital strategist Mindy Finn explained to Politico: “[Digital organizing is] not just raw numbers. It’s analyzing and determining who those people [who are engaging] are and matching them back to voter profiles. … It’s not having the most Facebook likes and clicks, because the ​‘who’ matters.”

While only age, sex and state information for each ad is provided by the Facebook Ad Library, Facebook allows ad buyers to target ads based on actual online behavior, in addition to self-reported characteristics like work and education. It can target using online shopping and browsing history, for example, and whether a person is likely to engage with conservative or liberal political content.

​“With that kind of targeting,” Lucy Purdon says, ​“you don’t know what information has been gathered about you, from who, and how you’ve been targeted.”

“Facebook says it’s not a one-to-one match of an identifiable individual,” says digital technology critic Sara Watson, ​“but the more elements that you start to target against,” the closer you can get to identifying individual people.

Exxon’s social media approach is unusually brazen, according to Collins of InfluenceMap. He tells In These Times that Exxon’s use of social media to lobby the public goes way beyond the rest of the industry, a claim supported by the company’s abnormally high spending on Facebook political ads. Typically, such tactics would be used by political organizations or trade associations, not directly by corporations.

“It does feel novel that the ads would not be about the product but the interests of the company,” Watson says. She likens Exxon’s use of social media ads to the workings of ​“a Super PAC, but on a much more granular scale.”

In the 11,622 Exxon ads examined for this article, on average, 16% of those who saw each ad were men older than 65, 16% women older than 65, and another 16% men between 55 and 64. In contrast, only about 15% were users 18 – 34 (of any gender). Despite the fact that people older than 65 were a third of those who saw a typical Exxon ad, the group represents only 16% of the total U.S. population. Furthermore, younger people use social media more than older ones. Pew Research Center has used polling to track social media adoption for the past several years, reporting last year that 79% people 18- to 29-years-old are on Facebook and 67% use Instagram, compared to just 46% and 8%, respectively, of senior citizens. Although both Facebook and Exxon declined to comment on what filters Exxon uses to target its ads, this disproportionality suggests the ads are not being sent at random.

Since Exxon’s primary business does not involve selling directly to individuals (the company decided to exit the gas station business in 2008), Watson says Exxon’s personal targeting could build a case for consumer protection, since ​“most consumers should not have a direct relationship with Exxon.” She adds, ​“So what right does Exxon have in collecting any consumer data at all, aside from aggregate information about consumer trends?”

Exxon declined to comment on how it uses individual data, but a few recent examples reveal how the oil industry as a whole is embracing the strategies Exxon has been relying upon.

Take the Texas controversy earlier this year over something called prorationing, the (now) rarely used government authority to regulate oil quotas to smooth out fluctuations in the U.S. oil market. The authority hasn’t been exercised in Texas since the 1970s, but this past spring, the Covid-19 shutdown led to an oil glut so large there was nowhere to store any more oil. The Trump administration ordered the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to fill ​“to the very top” in March, but his pro-oil policies weren’t enough to make up for the plummeting global demand.

The Texas Railroad Commission considered limiting the number of barrels that oil companies could pump, but free marketeers — linked to the oil industry—succeeded in beating back that proposal.

Multiple energy companies circulated the same anti-proration form letter, including Exxon. The American Petroleum Institute (API), which includes Exxon among its members, fielded an operation under the name Energy Citizens that used the same language.

API used a similar playbook in a 2017 Pennsylvania campaign, bankrolling an organization called Citizens Against Nuclear Bailouts. As revealed in a February Atlantic article, the group targeted residents with a barrage of Facebook ads, direct mail and phone calls. ​“Perhaps most surprising,” writer Robinson Meyer noted, ​“the industry has … actually borrowed tactics and ideas from climate activists.”

“It’s a really difficult question about what to do about” direct targeting of individuals with misleading information, says Kathie Treen, a Ph.D. candidate studying climate change misinformation at the University of Exeter, Devon, England. ​“It does raise all sorts of questions about freedom of speech and democratic rights. Is there a democratic right to be misinformed? Whose responsibility is it and who gets to say what counts, what is misleading and what isn’t, and whose responsibility it is to do something about it?”

12.1 MILLION! That’s how many barrels of oil per day the United States produced in March. Sign up for energy updates and support America’s energy industry!

13.1 MILLION! That’s the number of barrels of oil per day the United States is forecasted to produce in 2020. Sign up for energy updates and support America’s energy industry!

Exxon sent the two ads featured above to social media users nearly 4 million times in April 2019. A year later, headlines about the company’s fortunes had taken a decidedly different turn.

“Big Oil has fallen,” said May Boeve, 350​.org executive director, in a triumphant statement emailed to the environmental group’s supporters August 25, the same day the Dow Jones Industrial Average kicked Exxon off its index. The Dow gave Exxon’s spot, which the company had held since 1928, to business software company Salesforce.

Bloomberg called it ​“a stunning fall from grace,” noting Exxon’s ​“particularly rapid shift in fortunes” during the lethargic Covid economy. Exxon’s removal came a few weeks after the company reported a second straight quarterly loss. In August, the company announced it would suspend payments to the pension funds of its unionized workforce, though it continued paying stockholder dividends.

Exxon was the most valuable company in the United States as recently as 2011, but its stock began losing value well before the pandemic. ​“I’m done with fossil fuels.,” declared Wall Street guru Jim Cramer on the show Squawk Box in January. ​“They’re done. They’re just done. We’re starting to see divestment all over the world.”

As easily accessible oil reserves decline, Exxon and the entire fossil fuel industry is shifting toward lower-profit ​“unconventional” activities, such as fracking — the process of fracturing shale rock and capturing the oil and gas that gets pushed out.

An August 2018 Exxon ad touts fracking.]

Clark Williams-Derry, an energy finance analyst with the progressive Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, says fracking has been ​“a complete and utter bust,” a ​“cash flow-negative” business with production costs so high they’ve driven many upstart independent drilling companies into bankruptcy.

“Are they moving into shale because shale is a great opportunity,” Williams-Derry says, ​“or is it that there is no better opportunity?”He adds it’s only a matter of time before Exxon succumbs to competition from renewable energy companies and stockholders flee en masse.

Meanwhile, the oil industry is attempting to market fracking as a climate-friendly ​“bridge fuel” to ease the transition from coal and oil to renewables. But new research suggests natural gas might actually be contributing more to carbon emissions than coal—because of gas flaring from wells and leaky pipelines. According to a 2020 study, 3.7% of the methane produced in Texas’ Permian Basin (where Exxon has invested in fracking) leaks away and never makes it to market, more than twice the official EPA estimate for the region. Climate scientists have already determined that if just 3.2% of gas leaks it becomes worse than coal for climate change.

“It breaks my heart,” says climate scientist Peter Kalmus, ​“that we are basically skewing the planet’s future for the next 10 million years in exchange for a few more years of fracking, of fossil fuel CEOs raking in record profits. … It’s just madness.”

Exxon’s local fights aren’t all winners, like the time it spent $16,000 on ads urging Louisiana residents to ​“take action” in its fight against the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board over extending expiring industrial tax breaks in January 2019. Those ads were shown more than half a million times, though the company lost the vote.

But the trend is clear: Exxon turns to social media to push its national agenda and try to reverse its general waning public support. Exxon spent up to $1.4 million on social media ads promoting pipeline jobs, for example, appearing 40 million times over the two-year period investigated for this article and particularly targeting residents in states such as Michigan, where pipeline construction is controversial. Other ads pushed for offshore drilling in federal waters and the new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

For ads that were posted with the same or similar text multiple times, this shows the mean number of impressions and mean spending for ads with that text.

America is the world’s top energy producer. Do you want to see that continue?

SIGN the petition to add your name today!

ENERGY SURVEY: 94% of federal offshore acreage is off limits to development. Do you support expanding access to offshore energy production?

Answer the survey today!

232,000 Colorado jobs are at risk. Tell Governor Polis to OPPOSE a moratorium on new oil and gas development.

In some states, political social media ads like Exxon’s may need to be disclosed as lobbying efforts. But many states — including Texas, where Exxon is based — have few rules or reporting requirements on social media spending. Even in states with regulations, enforcement is nearly non-existent.

Unlike direct lobbying efforts — in which Exxon would meet directly with lawmakers — ​“indirect” lobbying (also known as ​“grassroots”) generally refers to efforts that encourage other people to contact lawmakers, the types of campaigns that include petitions or that aim to influence public opinion about a ballot issue. In some states, according to consulting firm State and Federal Communications, that definition includes ads on social media.

“There really isn’t data [about how much indirect lobbying goes on in the U.S.] because every state is different,” Elizabeth Z. Bartz, State and Federal president and CEO, tells In These Times.

In New York, for instance, social media posts are considered lobbying (and subject to regulation and disclosure) when the post includes a ​“lobbying activity,” takes ​“a clear position on the issue in question” and attempts to ​“influence a public official,” according to a tip sheet from State and Federal. As Exxon tells In These Times, it ​“complies with all applicable laws and regulations and our lobbying reports are publicly available and filed with the appropriate regulatory agencies and authorities. Where required, our reports to regulators and authorities disclose reportable grassroots lobbying activities.”

But disclosure is often not required.

“Facebook and other platforms aren’t going to care about it until the public cares.”

“Quite frankly, grassroots lobbying is probably the lion’s share of lobbying that goes on at the federal and state levels — and it goes entirely unreported,” says Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with the nonprofit group Public Citizen. ​“As long as [lobbyists] don’t actually knock on the door in D.C. of a member of Congress, it’s not actually reported.”

Reported or not, indirect lobbying is changing the corporate lobbying business, as illustrated by the 2019 annual report of the New York State Joint Commission. In New York state alone in 2019, 24% of registered lobbyists had expanded into indirect lobbying efforts, though only 1% engage exclusively in indirect lobbying. Out of a total of $16.8 million that lobbyists spent on advertising in 2019, digital advocacy and websites accounted for $3.6 million, surpassing the $2.9 million spent on print advertising.

Holman adds that the extent of Exxon’s social media operation ​“probably is evidence that [indirect lobbying] is far more prevalent today than it used to be. Social media now and the internet provide a perfect vehicle for deceptive advertising.”

“Companies will do it until they can’t,” says Sara Watson. ​“Facebook and other platforms aren’t going to care about it until the public cares.”

In the mid-2000s, there was an attempt in Congress to pass a federal indirect lobbying disclosure requirement, but it was beaten by what Holman describes as a massive astroturf campaign. Holman adds that similar proposals do exist, but whether they even have a chance depends on the outcome of the presidential election and ​“whether or not the Democrats are sincere” about reining in corporate abuses.

"I’m 24 and I wor­ry every sin­gle day about what will become of my future if the oil com­pa­nies keep drilling.”

Even if legal disclosure requirements are passed, Watson says, ​“there are huge questions about the enforceability of these laws,” particularly when it comes to platforms like Facebook with a business model utterly reliant on targeted online advertising.

Since 2011, a coalition of more than 70 investor groups have pushed for more disclosure of all corporate lobbying efforts, submitting more than 400 lobbying proposals to dozens of companies in the past nine years. Only seven proposals have received majority votes, but the issue is gaining momentum. Multiple such proposals have been submitted to Exxon by the United Steelworkers, including one earlier this year. Exxon recommended shareholders vote against it. It failed to pass but will be resubmitted next year.

“ENERGY SURVEY: 94% of federal offshore acreage is off limits to development. Do you support expanding access to offshore energy production? Answer the survey today!”

In 2019, 58% of the oil refined in California was imported from other countries. Take action and support energy production and local jobs right here in California. Support American Energy in Santa Barbara County. Make your voice heard.

If you have not had a chance, don’t forget to submit your comment letter in support of ExxonMobil’s Interim Trucking Permit. They’re due by 12pm on August 31st!

The address Facebook provides for Santa Barbara for Safe and Local Transport is the same address listed for ExxonMobil by the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce.

Exxon’s efforts to use social media to shore up public support are being put to the test in Santa Barbara.

The issue concerns Exxon’s Santa Ynez Unit (SYU), consisting of three offshore oil platforms off the Santa Barbara coast and an onshore processing facility at Las Flores Canyon. In 2015, the pipeline Exxon used to send oil inland to refineries — operated by the Plains All American Pipeline company — spilled 140,000 gallons of crude onto the coastline and into the ocean near Refugio State Beach. It wasn’t the first spill along this breathtaking stretch of Pacific Coast. The Santa Barbara Spill in 1969 was the largest single event in state history. Historians say it helped launch the modern environmental movement and the first Earth Day held the following year.

Without that pipeline, Exxon’s three offshore SYU platforms were retired. Exxon applied, in 2017, for a temporary trucking permit that would enable the company to reopen these wells. If approved, the company would run up to 70 trucks each day (about one every 20 minutes) on Central Coast roads from SYU to California refineries.

On August 12, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission issued its long-awaited recommendations based on the environmental impact analysis on Exxon’s plan. A public hearing was scheduled for early September, but before that could happen, Phillips 66 announced it was closing its Santa Barbara County refinery — which Exxon had intended as its primary destination for the trucked oil.

A possible alternate path would be a longer route to the Plains Pentland Terminal in neighboring Kern County. In its environmental analysis, however, the commission had suggested Exxon abandon Pentland altogether ​“to limit truck travel, reduce air emissions, and reduce the likelihood of accidents resulting in spills due to fewer miles traveled.”

The commission may still approve Exxon’s plan, however, and the next step would be a final decision from the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. Errin Briggs, supervising planner in the Planning Commission’s Energy Division, says the project is still feasible depending on what modifications Exxon makes to its proposal and that county officials will have to weigh the risks of the oil against area economic benefits.

Santa Barbara for Safe and Local Transport (SBSLT), meanwhile, launched in December 2018. SBSLT’s direct ties to Exxon are apparent. The Santa Maria Sun, a local newspaper, spoke to Exxon Mobil’s then-SYU asset manager for a profile on SBSLT, and reported that SBSLT is ​“a joint effort between ExxonMobil and interested Santa Barbara County community members”; the group’s website says it’s ​“Powered by Exxon SYU.”

[Oil workers and protestors pack the Santa Barbara County Building May 6, 2019, at a hearing on Exxon’s application to truck crude oil through Santa Barbara County. (Gabriel Vargas / www.gabrielvargasdp.com)]

The SBSLT website describes itself as ​“a coalition of residents and taxpayers, including local businesses, teachers, law and safety enforcement and ExxonMobil employees.” Exxon does claim support from several unions and business chambers, about 30 businesses and a half dozen local leaders, including some current and former elected officials. To date, SBSLT has spent more than $44,000 on social media advertising, and Exxon has spent more than $2 million in a variety of offshore drilling ads through its primary page.

​“We need people to be realistic about the decisions that must be made to live here,” Bob Setbacken admonished other local residents in a comment thread last year on the SBSLT page. He is a retired Santa Barbara resident, according to his Facebook profile, but didn’t return a phone call requesting an interview.

As of October 19, SBSLT’s Facebook page had only 408 likes and 422 followers in a county of 450,000. The page has drawn the ire of local residents. ​“SYU is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Santa Barbara resident Maureen McFadden writes May 22. Amy Foss, another commenter on the page, calls SBSLT ​“an oil company propaganda page, not a ​‘community.’ ”

In October 2019, Facebook said in an online post that it would be adding more information about who is behind Facebook pages, including adding confirmed page owner information and verified city, phone number or website. In October 2020, the SBSLT page continues to be listed as a ​“community organization,” and under the ​“Page Transparency” section, it reads: ​“Santa Barbara for Safe and Local Transport is responsible for this Page,” making no reference to Exxon. But the address provided for SBSLT in the Facebook Ad Library is an ExxonMobil address.

​“If we find a Page is concealing its ownership in order to mislead people, we will require it to show more information about who is behind it,” said a spokesperson for Facebook in an emailed statement. ​“We’re investigating if these Pages follow our rules.”

Beyond Facebook, opposition to Exxon’s Santa Barbara plans is fierce. The opposition has its own grassroots coalition of environmental and community groups, local government supporters and more than 80 businesses. They fear how another oil spill could impact the region’s tourism and fishing industries. Other locals complain the roads just aren’t made to truck that much oil.

In Santa Barbara, as it does across the country, Exxon hopes to turn the tide on its pumping, trucking and fracking through its laxly regulated social media lobbying efforts; its political consultants and campaign software; and its well-funded and heavily motivated supporters. Exxon’s $16-million ad spending spree underscores that the fight against the fossil fuel industry is far from over.

Stephanie Prufer, an oceans campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, says she doesn’t think Exxon’s strategy will work for the company, especially among youth.

“I’m not surprised that Exxon is targeting the demographic that they are,” she says, referring to the fact that Exxon ads disproportionately appear on the screens of older social media users. ​“They know they are not going to be able to get the support of people who are afraid for their own futures. I’m 24 and I worry every single day about what will become of my future if the oil companies keep drilling.”

“The science is so clear,” she adds. ​“We need to keep oil in the ground. We need to end drilling on our coast, not revive it.”

This arti­cle was sup­port­ed by a grant from the Leonard C. Good­man Insti­tute for Inves­tiga­tive Report­ing. David DeMaris served as a technology consultant on this story. Juan Caicedo contributed fact-checking.

CHRISTINE MACDONALD is an investigative reporter and author, whose work focuses climate change, environmental sustainability and greenwashing. She was a 2019-2020 fellow with the Leonard C. Goodman Institute for Investigative Reporting.

see CIC:

CIC’s Trade Associations PR Investigation in the Media

Posted: April 8, 2019

In early March 2019, the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) launched its Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry report, which revealed the almost $1.4 billion energy and business trade associations spent over the past decade on advertising, communications, and advocacy via contracts with public relations (PR) companies. Since the publication of the report, CIC’s Kert …

https://climateinvestigations.org/trade-associations-pr-investigation-media/

no lnx graphs

CIC’s Trade Associations PR Investigation in the Media

Climate Investigations Center on April 8, 2019

cic pr trade association report summarization photo

In early March 2019, the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) launched its Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry report, which revealed the almost $1.4 billion energy and business trade associations spent over the past decade on advertising, communications, and advocacy via contracts with public relations (PR) companies.

Since the publication of the report, CIC’s Kert Davies has been interviewed by online media outlets and podcasts discussing which PR firms were contracted, the various campaigns spawned from these connections, and the impacts these campaigns have on the public and lawmakers.

HuffPost

In a HuffPost article titled Big Business Spent $1.4 Billion On PR, Advertising Over The Last Decade, Chris D’Angelo wrote about CIC’s findings on trade associations and their public relations contracts. Additionally, D’Angelo interviewed Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Brown University who has tracked corporate spending and climate change denial groups. Regarding trade association PR contracts, Brulle says, “I don’t think you can understand the opposition to climate action unless you take this massive amount of activity into account.” Brulle called these PR campaigns the “sinews of the political operations and the cultural operations surrounding climate politics.”

Drilled Podcast

“In a lot of ways, PR firms have been sort of the linchpin of the fossil fuel industry’s plan for a long, long time.”

The true crime podcast, Drilled, hosted Davies on an episode titled, Big Oil Is Ramping Up PR Spending and Oil Production, which focused on the relationship between the fossil fuel industry and public relations firms. The episode covered both CIC’s trade association PR investigation as well as a report published by Influence Map.

Host Amy Westervelt described PR firms as being “the linchpin of the fossil fuel industry’s plan for a long, long time,” highlighting their extensive use by trade associations that represent the corporate interests of their membership. These trade associations allow member companies to push their political and anti-environmental agendas without a direct connection to their brand which might tarnish their reputation.

Westervelt highlighted trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the US Chamber of Commerce as some of the biggest offenders.  During the interview, Davies explained that the visible PR campaigns are part of larger goals and targets that have been “agreed upon by the members of that trade association” and are a “window into their political game.” He notes that this tactic includes “very little overt climate denial” and instead is about “laying the groundwork for the campaigns that are against policies on climate change.” For instance, by “making fracking look good” people may begin to “question these policies like the Green New Deal,” Davies says.

Example of trade association advertising, this is API’s Vote4Energy campaign: “We can produce the energy America needs and protect the environment – it doesn’t have to be either/or. There’s already been a lot of progress.” Member companies of API include ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell.

The Real News Network

Kert Davies interviewed by Dharna Noor on the Real News Network, April 2019. View the video above to watch the full Real News Network segment on CIC’s trade associations and public relations spending report.

Davies was also recently interviewed on the Real News Network where he outlined the origins of CIC’s 2019 trade association PR investigation, showcased the report’s findings, and discussed the purpose of trade association campaigns.

As discussed on the show, the money spent on PR contracts by renewable energy associations and fossil fuel associations was a major finding of CIC’s investigation. Of the almost $1.4 billion spent by trade associations in the past decade, only $98.4 million of it (7%) was spent by renewable energy associations. In his interview, Davies elaborated, stating:

…it turns out that if you add all of [the renewable energy trade association PR contracts] up, including the ones that do biofuels and ethanol… they are a fraction of the total spending… API alone is six times the total spending of all the renewable energy associations combined.

API alone spent over six times more than the renewable energy trade associations we analyzed.

Davies also explains that this 2019 report was a continuation of a 2014 CIC investigation, which started with a survey to PR firms asking questions about their internal climate action plans, carbon tracking initiatives, and any client projects focused on climate change issues. As Davies explained, “Turns out, nobody had ever asked the PR companies these questions before, but we got some very interesting responses, including the biggest company, Edelman, who accidentally sent me an email saying ‘there are only wrong answers here, don’t respond.’”

Edelman PR email replying to Kert Davies, "There are no right answers for this guy."

Dharna Noor, host of the Real News Network segment, also highlighted Edelman’s connection to Koch Industries, “a key funder of climate change denial messaging.” As detailed in CIC’s investigation, Edelman was a frequent contractor to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, of which Koch Industries and its subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, is a member.

The Intercept

…companies are “using stories that appear to be part of a journalistic publication, but are actually paid for by advertisers in attempt to improve an image…”

In early April 2019, the Intercept published an article by Sharon Lerner titled, How the Media Launders Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Through Branded Content. The Intercept article warns against the rise of ”native advertising”, which is a form of advertising where an ad is written in article form and published on credible news sites to look like an article.

Lerner explains that fossil fuel and other companies are “using stories that appear to be part of a journalistic publication, but are actually paid for by advertisers in attempt to improve an image suffering in the coverage done by actual journalists.” Lerner cites CIC’s research, saying, “Industry trade groups spent almost $1.4 billion on PR, advertising and communications contractors over the past decade, according to the Climate Investigations Center, almost half of which came from the American Petroleum Institute.”

Click here to read CIC’s full Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry report

https://climateinvestigations.org/trade-association-pr-spending/

no lnx graphs

Trade Associations and the Public Relations Industry

How much money have the corporate and fossil fuel industry’s powerful trade association allies spent to convince the American public that its products are beneficial and necessary – and to stymie progress on climate change that could harm its financial interests?

To find out, Climate Investigations Center researchers analyzed the public relations expenditures of these trade associations going back to 2008, using data from publicly-available federal Form 990 tax records. The expenditures provide unique insight into trade association priorities and the willingness of public relations firms to represent socially harmful industries.

The trade associations we analyzed spent almost $1.4 billion on contracts with public relations, advertising, and communications contractors since 2008.

Between 2008 and 2017, these trade associations spent almost $1.4 billion on public relations, advertising, and communications contractors. The American Petroleum Institute eclipses all spenders at $663 million over this time period, accounting for nearly half the total trackable spending from all trade associations. The US Chamber of Commerce ranked second at $244 million spent. We found that the public relations firms with the most lucrative contracts over the time period of our dataset were Edelman, DDC Advocacy, FleishmanHillard, and Blue Advertising (once part of Edelman).

Many of the trade associations we analyzed are fossil fuel associated but represent different sectors of the industry, such as oil, gas, coal, petrochemical, mining, and utility companies. Trade associations spend their revenue, from members’ dues, on salaries, rent, and services such as lobbying and legal counsel, to forward the goals of the industry they represent.

Trade associations routinely utilize the advertising andfront group — astroturf— services that public relations firms can provide. Top trade associations spend millions on public relations work each year, often targeting the Washington DC media market and political decision makers.  Some prominent PR campaigns are launched nationwide,  while others create front groups that will intentionally never bear the trade association’s name.

To view the spending by individual trade associations or to see a profile of the PR firms we analyzed,

click on the links below:

Trade Associations

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

American Fuels & Petrochemical Manufacturers

America’s Natural Gas Alliance

American Petroleum Institute

Edison Electric Institute

National Association of Manufacturers

National Mining Association

National Propane Gas Association

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

Nuclear Energy Institute

United States Chamber of Commerce

Western Energy Alliance

Renewable Energy associations

Public Relations Firms

Edelman and Blue Advertising

Burson-Marsteller (Burson Cohn & Wolfe, as of 2018)

DCI Group

Democracy, Data & Communications Advocacy (DDC Advocacy)

FleishmanHillard

FTI Consulting

Hawthorn Group

Hill+Knowlton

Kivvit

Porter Novelli

Something Else Strategies

Our analysis also reveals that fossil fuel trade associations far exceed the PR and advertising spending of renewable energy trade associations. One fossil fuel industry trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, spent over six times more than four prominent renewable energy trade associations combined. In total, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Growth Energy, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) spent $98.4 million on PR and advertising during the 2008 to 2017 period. API alone dwarfs all four associations, spending a total of $663.2 million during the same time period.

API alone spent over six times more than the renewable energy trade associations we analyzed.

In addition to a comprehensive analysis of how industry utilizes these sizable contracts, CIC has made available all the IRS 990 tax forms used in this analysis, and produced interactive data visualizations and downloadable spreadsheets with the raw data.

In this report, the Climate Investigations Center has extended and updated the Center for Public Integrity’s groundbreaking 2015 report on public relations spending by trade associations.  Spending data we have compiled since the CPI analysis confirms that public relations firms remain in a lucrative and influential partnership with big business and energy trade associations.

The Center for Public Integrity published “Who needs lobbyists? See what big business spends to win American minds,” which was the most thorough analysis of trade association spending to date in January 2015. The report compiled IRS 990 data from 2008 through 2012 to reveal that trade associations were often spending more on public relations firms than lobbyists. For some industries, advertising and front groups seemed to be the most powerful chosen means of achieving policy goals, putting public relations firms at the center of the policy debate over clean air, climate solutions, and good governance.

Download our data here (.csv file), or view in the table below:

Trade Association Contract Recipient Year Amount Paid

Western Energy Alliance Resonate Networks 2014 $175,000.00

Western Energy Alliance FTI Consulting 2017 $217,317.00

Western Energy Alliance Resonate Networks 2013 $200,000.00

Western Energy Alliance FTI Consulting 2018 $243,000.00

Western Energy Alliance Clear Channel 2013 $125,360.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Agency 2018 $4,834,422.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2018 $5,270,805.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2017 $1,150,000.00

United States Chamber of Commerce R Street Films 2018 $1,554,650.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Albright Stonebridge Group LLC 2017 $712,888.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2017 $2,919,990.00

United States Chamber of Commerce R Street Films 2016 $4,500,000.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2016 $9,204,150.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2016 $10,400,000.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Glass House Strategy 2016 $797,550.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Integrated Web Strategy 2015 $1,756,009.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2015 $1,734,327.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Revolution Media Group 2014 $14,456,184.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2015 $1,200,000.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Something Else Strategies 2014 $7,050,000.00

many more pages]

United States Chamber of Commerce Integrated Web Strategy 2008 $1,225,909.00

United States Chamber of Commerce Presentation Testing 2008 $452,450.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Crosscut Strategies 2018 $251,005.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Crosscut Strategies 2018 $451,005.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Greentech Media 2014 $161,363.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Greentech Media 2013 $206,338.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Blue Worldwide 2011 $410,790.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Tiger Communications 2011 $275,915.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Forum One Communications 2011 $160,200.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Tiger Communications 2010 $272,164.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Blake & Company 2010 $141,343.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Tiger Communications 2009 $277,035.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Pillsbury Winthrop 2009 $143,719.00

Solar Energy Industries Association Tiger Communications 2008 $282,561.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Bully Pullpit Interactive LLC 2018 $1,297,500.00

Nuclear Energy Institute APCO Worldwide 2017 $5,801,384.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Bully Pulpit Interactive 2017 $1,129,201.00

Nuclear Energy Institute APCO Worldwide 2016 $1,152,606.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Hill+Knowlton 2016 $1,624,600.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Kivvit 2016 $4,887,451.00

p 4

Nuclear Energy Institute Kivvit 2015 $7,231,176.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Hill+Knowlton 2015 $1,997,011.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Smith & Harroff Inc 2015 $931,512.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Hill+Knowlton 2014 $2,194,235.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Potomac Communications Group 2014 $486,715.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Smith & Harroff Inc 2014 $1,602,939.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Smith & Harroff Inc 2013 $1,876,578.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Hill+Knowlton 2013 $1,796,853.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Potomac Communications Group 2013 $462,956.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Hill+Knowlton 2012 $4,964,386.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Burson-Marsteller 2012 $294,414.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Smith & Harroff Inc 2012 $4,463,288.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Potomac Communications Group 2012 $491,602.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Smith & Harroff Inc 2011 $4,720,107.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Hill+Knowlton 2011 $4,107,578.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Luntz Global LLC 2011 $547,256.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Smith & Harroff Inc 2010 $1,867,491.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Hill+Knowlton 2010 $2,128,574.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Potomac Communications Group 2010 $403,107.00

Nuclear Energy Institute Smith & Harroff Inc 2009 $2,221,698.00

...page 8

National Association of Manufacturers DCI Group 2016 $1,851,461.00

National Association of Manufacturers Edelman 2016 $1,199,953.00

National Association of Manufacturers DCI Group 2015 $3,424,574.00

National Association of Manufacturers FTI Consulting 2015 $7,942,891.00

National Association of Manufacturers Mentzer Media Services 2015 $1,867,890.00

National Association of Manufacturers Democracy Data & Communications 2015 $1,582,784.00

National Association of Manufacturers Hamilton Place Strategies 2015 $1,441,979.00

National Association of Manufacturers DCI Group 2014 $1,770,200.00

National Association of Manufacturers Target Enterprises 2014 $1,425,743.00

National Association of Manufacturers IMGE 2014 $916,645.00

National Association of Manufacturers DCI Group 2013 $1,770,200.00

National Association of Manufacturers Multi Media Services 2012 $2,587,236.00

National Association of Manufacturers Edelman 2013 $1,610,413.00

National Association of Manufacturers Target Enterprises 2012 $1,443,489.00

National Association of Manufacturers Edelman 2012 $1,080,878.00

National Association of Manufacturers Gallatin Public Affairs 2012 $553,190.00

National Association of Manufacturers Target Enterprises 2010 $3,748,483.00

National Association of Manufacturers Target Enterprises 2011 $3,800,000.00

National Association of Manufacturers Cove Strategies 2010 $165,000.00

National Association of Manufacturers Target Enterprises 2009 $4,400,000.00

p 9

National Association of Manufacturers DCI Group 2008 $2,543,079.00

National Association of Manufacturers FleishmanHillard 2008 $402,500.00

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Bracewell & Giuliani 2017 $204,109.00

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Icemiller Strategies 2017 $120,000.00

Growth Energy GRP Buying 2018 $2,019,657.00

Growth Energy RCR 2018 $2,803,637.00

Growth Energy Plus Communications 2018 $1,826,908.00

Growth Energy NASCAR 2018 $2,000,000.00

Growth Energy NASCAR 2017 $3,500,000.00

Growth Energy NASCAR 2016 $5,600,000.00

Growth Energy FP1 Public Affairs 2017 $2,494,435.00

Growth Energy FP1 Public Affairs 2016 $2,464,619.00

Growth Energy RCR 2016 $3,963,615.00

Growth Energy RCR 2015 $2,131,950.00

Growth Energy NASCAR 2015 $5,600,000.00

Growth Energy America's Renewable Future 2015 $1,250,000.00

Growth Energy FUELSAMERICA 2015 $1,000,000.00

Growth Energy NASCAR 2014 $5,600,000.00

Growth Energy RCR 2014 $2,731,782.00

Growth Energy Americans United For Change 2014 $1,582,450.00

p 11

Edison Electric Institute Net Communications 2015 $750,599.00

Edison Electric Institute Sloane & Company 2015 $391,995.00

Edison Electric Institute Edelman 2013 $1,091,122.00

Edison Electric Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2014 $1,326,106.00

Edison Electric Institute R&R Partners 2013 $515,811.00

Edison Electric Institute Edelman 2012 $683,183.00

Edison Electric Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2012 $548,163.00

Edison Electric Institute GC Strategic Advocacy 2009 $543,940.00

American Wind Energy Association IMGE 2017 $727,470.00

Edison Electric Institute GC Strategic Advocacy 2008 $1,100,597.00

American Wind Energy Association Capital Counsel 2013 $250,328.00

American Wind Energy Association Revolution Media Group 2011 $1,046,395.00

American Wind Energy Association Elmendorf Strategies 2014 $180,000.00

American Wind Energy Association Rosen Group 2009 $334,995.00

American Wind Energy Association Revolution Media Group 2012 $1,722,452.00

American Petroleum Institute GSD&M 2018 $31,989,809.00

American Wind Energy Association New Media 2011 $744,274.00

American Petroleum Institute DDC Advocacy 2018 $7,735,244.00

American Petroleum Institute Pool House 2018 $3,299,340.00

American Petroleum Institute GSD&M 2017 $30,396,324.00

p12

American Petroleum Institute Blue Advertising 2016 $24,355,069.00

American Petroleum Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2017 $6,922,626.00

American Petroleum Institute Advocates Inc 2017 $4,039,363.00

American Petroleum Institute FleishmanHillard 2016 $9,515,924.00

American Petroleum Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2016 $6,738,577.00

American Petroleum Institute Advocates Inc 2016 $4,090,899.00

American Petroleum Institute Blue Advertising 2015 $26,890,598.00

American Petroleum Institute Designated Market Media 2015 $10,840,597.00

American Petroleum Institute FleishmanHillard 2015 $18,255,218.00

American Petroleum Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2015 $7,466,543.00

American Petroleum Institute Blue Advertising 2014 $28,272,065.00

American Petroleum Institute FleishmanHillard 2014 $17,254,064.00

American Petroleum Institute Designated Market Media 2014 $8,144,795.00

American Petroleum Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2014 $6,961,184.00

American Petroleum Institute Blue Advertising 2013 $32,834,698.00

American Petroleum Institute Designated Market Media 2013 $6,124,143.00

American Petroleum Institute FleishmanHillard 2013 $23,941,600.00

American Petroleum Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2013 $5,553,397.00

American Petroleum Institute Edelman 2012 $51,917,692.00

American Petroleum Institute FleishmanHillard 2012 $22,782,020.00

p13

American Petroleum Institute Designated Market Media 2012 $5,289,804.00

American Petroleum Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2012 $5,529,594.00

American Petroleum Institute Advocates Inc 2011 $5,430,224.00

American Petroleum Institute Edelman 2011 $68,306,448.00

American Petroleum Institute FleishmanHillard 2011 $4,846,056.00

American Petroleum Institute Democracy Data & Communications 2011 $4,089,200.00

American Petroleum Institute Edelman 2010 $63,228,379.00

American Petroleum Institute Advocates Inc 2010 $3,843,563.00

American Petroleum Institute Edelman 2009 $68,732,735.00

American Petroleum Institute Advocates Inc 2009 $3,138,667.00

American Petroleum Institute Edelman 2008 $75,207,455.00

American Petroleum Institute DC Navigators 2008 $2,300,000.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Glover Park 2014 $2,597,208.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Porter Novelli 2014 $683,645.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Porter Novelli 2013 $1,171,558.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Glover Park 2013 $2,777,189.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Gladstein Neandross & Associates 2013 $934,016.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Glover Park 2012 $2,963,161.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Dewey Square 2012 $738,957.00

American Natural Gas Alliance Dewey Square 2011 $1,475,506.00

p 15

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Just Add Firewater 2018 $771,978.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Singer Associates 2017 $4,080,436.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Edelman 2016 $1,595,348.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Dezenhall Resources 2017 $1,500,546.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Edelman 2014 $4,011,828.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Edelman 2015 $2,996,049.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers American Energy Alliance 2014 $350,000.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Edelman 2013 $3,034,064.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers American Energy Alliance 2013 $450,000.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Consumer Energy Alliance 2013 $522,500.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers American Energy Alliance 2012 $895,000.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Consumer Energy Alliance 2012 $790,000.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Creative Response Concepts 2012 $722,205.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Edelman 2012 $638,494.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Consumer Energy Alliance 2011 $1,045,000.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Prisim Public Affairs 2010 $250,194.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Eletricity DCI Group 2018 $247,277.00

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Bevendge Seay 2009 $168,678.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity DCI Group 2017 $490,770.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Democracy Data & Communications 2016 $1,093,877.00

p 16

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity DCI Group 2016 $673,111.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Stateside Associates 2016 $252,045.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity DCI Group 2015 $1,583,262.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Causeway Soultions 2015 $513,891.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Democracy Data & Communications 2015 $387,902.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Blueprint Communications 2015 $300,000.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Real Clear Holdings 2015 $346,000.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity DCI Group 2014 $2,083,525.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity NJI Media 2014 $313,775.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP 2014 $240,399.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Blueprint Communications 2014 $240,000.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity JDA Frontline 2013 $650,108.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity DCI Group 2013 $2,811,881.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity White and Partners 2012 $16,169,526.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity New Media Strategies 2012 $4,018,884.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Hawthorn Group 2012 $1,591,098.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity DCI Group 2012 $1,187,219.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity White and Partners 2011 $23,943,108.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity Hawthorn Group 2011 $2,008,860.00

American Coalition on Clean Coal Electricity R&R Partners 2011 $1,626,678.00

end?

Energy and Corporate Trade Associations Spend $1.4 Billion on PR Campaigns

Posted: March 14, 2019

How much money have the fossil fuel industry’s powerful trade association allies spent to convince the American public that its products are beneficial and necessary – and to stymie progress on climate change that could harm its financial interests? To find out, Climate Investigations Center researchers analyzed the public relations expenditures of these trade association

amazonwatch

https://theamazonpost.com/post-trial-brief-pdfs/brief/10PX0528.pdf

no lnx

11 Civ. 0691 (LAK)

PLAINTIFF’S

EXHIBIT

528#

ChevronToxico I Chevron Using Six Public Relations Firms to Discredit Indigenous Groups

THE CAMPAIGNI FOR JUSTIn INI ECUADOR

ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN NEWS & MULTIMEDIA TAKE ACTION

HOME » News and Multimedia

Chevron Using Six Public Relations

Firms to Discredit Indigenous Groups In

$27.3 Billion Environmental Case In

Ecuador

Lobbyists - Mac McLarty, John Breaux, Trent Lott,

Mickey Kantor, Carla Hills and Others - Charged With

Misrepresenting Facts

FRlliTE DE IlERlNlIA

Amazon Defense Coalition

20 November 2009 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Karen Hinton at 703-798-3109 or

... karen@hintoncommunications.com

Caroline Bennett at 510-520-9390 or caroline@amazonwatch.org

start:]

Washington, DC - Chevron has retained at least twelve public relations firms and lobbyists to

discredit claims of Amazon indigenous groups on the eve of an expected multi-billion dollar

judgment against the oil giant in an environmental lawsuit in Ecuador, according to representatives

of the tribes in the U.S.

Although Chevron is near the top of the list of highest-spending lobbyists in Washington, the

campaign seems to be backfiring. Politico, one of the most influential publications on Capitol Hill,

reported this week that Chevron's lobbying was "drawing fire from environmentalists, media

ethicists, state pension funds, New York's attorney general, members of Congress, and even Barack

Obama when he was a Senator."

The article also quoted Rep. Linda Sanchez (D - CA) as calling Chevron's lobbying "clumsy" and

"very heavy handed". Sanchez - who on Tuesday characterized the Chevron lobbying as "extortion"

in testimony before Congress - said she plans to write three letters to Members of Congress,

blasting what she called the oil giant's "misguided approach" to dealing with the lawsuit from the

indigenous groups.

Separately, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating the company to determine if

it is misleading its own shareholders about the financial risk from the Ecuador case, where damages

are assessed at up to $27.3 billion, Politico reported.

An American legal advisor to the plaintiffs, Steven Donziger, criticized the public relations and

lobbying effort."Chevron is paying huge fees to lobby the U.S. government to inappropriately quash

a legal case brought by indigenous tribes in the country where Chevron asked for the trial to be

held," said Donziger, who has been working on the matter since it was filed in U.S. federal court in

1993.

The case, which alleges Texaco dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon from 1964

to 1990, was transferred from U.S. federal court to Ecuador in 2002 at Chevron's request. The oil

giant filed 14 expert affidavits in the U.S. court praising Ecuador's court system, but later began a

campaign to discredit those same courts once the evidence in the Ecuador trial pointed to its

culpability.

The public relations firms working for Chevron include Hill & Knowlton, which represented the

tobacco industry and - as it did in the debate over tobacco and cancer - has tried to deny a link

between oil contamination and cancer;Edelman Worldwide, which is believed to be preparing a

Wal-Mart-style political campaign against the indigenous groups in anticipation of an adverse court

judgment;Sard Verbinnem, which handles financial press in an effort to stem a budding shareholder

revolt against Chevron management for its handling of the case; Robinson Lerer Montgomery, a

well-highly connected New York-based agency; Sam Singer and Associates, which handles the

matter in the San Francisco area, where Chevron is located; and the Washington-basedCRC

Public Relations, which helped create a pro-Chevron video by former CNN correspondent Gene

Randall to counteract a highly unflattering 60 Minutes segment on the legal case that broadcast

earlier in the year.

The Randall video, which did not mention that it was paid for by Chevron, was blasted by the

Columbia Journalism Reviewfor "blurring the line between public relations and journalism." The

President of CRC, Greg Mueller, spearheaded the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry and is a

former senior aide to Pat Buchanan.

CVX-RICO-0502246

Plaintiff's Exhibit 528# p. 2 of 4

among Chevron's lobbyists isWayne Berman, former McCain campaign national finance chair who chairs the governmental relations practice at Ogilvy Worldwide; former Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott; Mac McLarty, former chief of state to President Clinton who is lobbying the State Department; Mickey Kantor and Carla Hills, former U.S. trade ambassadors who are lobbying their former agency to cancel Ecuador's trade preferences; 

Peter Romero, who served as U.S. ambassador to Ecuador in the early 1990s under the first Clinton Administration; Brian Pomper, the former staff director toU.S. Sen. Max Baucus; Scott Parvin, a career lobbyist who formerly worked with Kantor at the law firm Mayer Brown; and several members of Chevron's governmental relations office in Washington, headed by William Irwin. Lawyers for the Amazon communities have long said Chevron's public relations and lobbying firms are part of a broader effort by the company to undermine the rule of law in Ecuador in anticipation of an adverse judgment. The company has taken out advertisements in both Ecuadorian and American newspapers attacking lawyers for the communities and various judges who have presided over the case.

The public relations firms and lobbyists also state incorrectly that Chevron was released from further clean-up responsibility in Ecuador by the government in exchange for a limited clean-up in the mid 1990s. But the terms of the release itself expressly exclude the private claims in the current lawsuit and the so-called remediation was a fraud that has led to the indictment of two Chevron lawyers and several former government officials, said Donziger.

:{

}:

Evidence at trial against Chevron includes more than 50,000 chemical sampling results produced by the company itself, which prove that 100% of its former well sites are highly contaminated with cancer-causing toxins, according to an independent court-appointed Special Master who reviewed the evidence in the case and assessed damages. A final decision on liability and damages is expected next year. For more information, become a follower of The Chevron Pit or follow @ChevronPit on Twitter