On election night, polluter-backed candidates lost in some of the most expensive races targeted by polluters, despite outside ad spending that tallied to $270 million.

The American Petroleum Institute already has 2014 in its sights, and it is spending aggressively to protect the oil industry’s multi-billion-dollar tax breaks. Three weeks since election day, API has spent $3 million on TV ads, according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Kantar Media’s CMAG data. That is already $1 million more than what API spent in the final two months of the election, as part of its “I’m an Energy Voter” campaign.

A bulk of the spending, $600,000, targets specific senators over Big Oil’s $4 billion annual tax breaks, all of whom are up for reelection in 2014. All but two voted in March to end oil subsidies, a vote blocked by 47 senators who have taken more than $23.5 million from the oil and gas industry.

Here is an example of one ad directed at Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA):

NARRATOR: America spoke loudly. Clearly, we want a commonsense plan to help people succeed. Senator Mark Warner can make energy a big part of improving our economy. He can choose economic growth and American jobs, not slow them with job-killing energy taxes. Let’s take advantage of America’s energy resources to power growth. American energy – not higher taxes on energy – will create jobs. Let’s get to work.

Ending the industry’s tax breaks would not affect Americans’ gas prices, or kill jobs. Factcheck.org writes that “nonpartisan congressional analysts and industry experts say higher taxes would have little or no effect on gasoline prices.” And at the same time oil enjoyed low tax rates and earned high profits, Exxon, Shell, and BP still shed 17,500 jobs.

ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have paid federal tax rates well below the 35 percent top corporate rate. ExxonMobil, for instance, paid a 13 percent tax rate in 2011, after drilling deductions and benefits, and 14 percent on average between 2008 and 2010.
Read more

In four of the swing states President Obama swept, voters said energy was one of their top considerations in casting their ballot, according to a post-election poll released by the American Council on Renewable Energy and Advanced Energy Economy Ohio Institute.

These voters also indicated they were supportive of candidates advocating for clean energy (Iowa: 80%, Colorado: 75%, Virginia: 72%, Ohio: 70%).

But these states and others saw heavy outside spending in presidential and Senate races, particularly on energy issues. In many cases, myths promoted in polluter-funded ads about the so-called necessity of the Keystone XL pipeline, the “war on coal,” anti-climate legislation, and anti-clean energy ended up losing. Despite $270 million in presidential, Senate, and House ads financed by polluter-connected groups — $31 million specifically on energy issues — clean energy candidates won in races down the ballot.

Energy was far from the only issue to play a role in election outcomes, but groups piled millions of dollars into ads to push polluter issues as a top priority. And where energy issues dominated in presidential and Senate races, voters rejected polluter claims, electing the candidates backing clean energy:

KEYSTONE XL: Back in January, the American Petroleum Institute promised to make the pipeline an issue that would have “huge political consequences” for opponents. But looking at races where it came up, often backed by heavy spending, the issue did not break through to voters. Not one Senator who voted to defeat Keystone XL construction in March 2012 lost his or her race. Connie Mack, for instance, repeatedly attacked Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) over his Keystone XL opposition, and lost by a wide margin.

In addition to candidate stump speeches, the Keystone XL pipeline appeared in $1.8 million ads bought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the Virginia and New Mexico Senate races since September, according to Kantar Media’s CMAG data.

CAP AND TRADE: Of the $5.7 million of ads running against Virginia’s Tim Kaine since September by outside groups, four separate ads amounting to $2 million mention cap and trade, according to Kantar Media’s CMAG data. Ads mentioning cap and trade also aired in the Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia races.

Read more

Credit: Paul K. Anderson

by Jessica Goad

Exporting coal from Montana and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin to markets around the world by way of shipping terminals in the Pacific Northwest is shaping up to be one of the next big environmental fights.

Currently five export terminals are proposed for Oregon and Washington, which would also require additional infrastructure like new coal trains running from the interior West to the coast.

There is serious money to be made from shipping coal abroad. As David Roberts at Grist pointed out: “the health of the U.S. coal industry hinges on its ability to increase exports to China and India.” So it’s no surprise that the coal, rail, and shipping industries spent nearly a million dollars in one month on television ads supporting the construction of coal export terminals.

A ThinkProgress analysis of the Kantar Media Group’s CMAG data reveals that the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports spent approximately $866,000 in Oregon and Washington in September on TV spots lauding the benefits of building coal export terminals.

The Alliance — which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer referred to as “astroturf” this summer — is a trade association consisting of major Powder River Basin coal mining companies like Arch Coal, Peabody Energy, and Cloud Peak Energy, as well as the interests promoting the various shipping terminals like Ambre Energy and SSA Marine. Rail and shipping companies, other business associations, and local labor groups are also part of the alliance.

Most of the coal that will be shipped from the five proposed terminals is from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana.  The vast majority of this coal is found under federal public lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, meaning that it belongs to American taxpayers (about 43 percent of all the coal mined in the U.S. is from public lands).  As ClimateProgress has reported before, taxpayers are getting a raw deal in this equation:

Over the last 30 years, the Bureau of Land Management has held “auctions” with one bidder and sold the resource for almost nothing, keeping coal prices artificially low…In one recent auction, the largest private coal company in the world, Peabody Energy, secured taxpayer-owned coal for $1.11 per ton. The company will likely be able to sell it in China for around $100 per ton.

While the industry touts the jobs and economic development that will come with the shipping terminals, railways, and other infrastructure associated with coal exports, local communities along the rail routes and the coast worry about health and land impacts like coal dust and noise. Sportsmen have also warned that coal exports could damage salmon and other wildlife habitat.  And exporting coal to be burned overseas also presents a “moral crossroads” on climate change.

It is unclear exactly how much influence the group’s spending will have on the political, media, and legal battles growing around coal exports.  But the Energy Information Administration determined earlier this week that the U.S. is on track to ship record amounts of coal abroad in 2012.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Land Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

When the solar manufacturing company Solyndra went bankrupt last September after receiving a $527 million loan guarantee, it sparked a politically-motivated Congressional investigation into the White House’s handling of the program — an “investigation” that critics admitted would “stop on election day.”

After acquiring 300,000 documents, holding a dozen hearings and official meetings, issuing two subpenas, and spending more than a million dollars on the investigation, members of Congress failed to present any evidence of political wrongdoing.

Congressional critics have “not shown the loan was granted as a result of political favoritism, despite repeated campaign-trail claims,” reported The Hill.

That didn’t stop special interest groups from spending millions of dollars on television ads this campaign season to trump up the Solyndra bankruptcy and spread “over-the-top, ultimately ridiculous” claims about clean energy programs.

According to a ThinkProgress analysis of independent advertisements from Kantar Media’s CMAG system, outside conservative groups spent $10.78 million on presidential campaign ads between April 1 and October 1 of this year specifically attacking the Solyndra loan or mentioning Solyndra as part of a broader attack on clean energy stimulus spending.

The ads were purchased by the American Energy Alliance, the American Future Fund, the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Karl Rove’s Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, and Let Freedom Ring.

However, the impact of those Solyndra ads on American voters mirrored the outcome of the year-long Congressional investigation into the company: minimal to nothing.

Despite the millions of dollars spent on Solyndra-related television spots over the last five months, polls show that a majority of American voters still don’t know about the company or are indifferent.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from early October showed that 58 percent of registered voters are unaware of Solyndra. The poll also found that one quarter of registered voters had a negative view of the company and 15 percent had a neutral view.
Read more