In a Switch, Green Groups Are Outspending Their Industry Foes—And Winning

Democrat Terry McAuliffe has benefitted from spending by environmental groups in the Virginia governor's race.
National Journal
Oct. 26, 2013, 8:54 a.m.

No one in What­com County, Wash­ing­ton re­mem­bers any­thing like this. On Novem­ber 5, the res­id­ents of this rur­al county, pop­u­la­tion 205,000, will vote, as they do every year, for a new slate of county coun­cil mem­bers. This year, though, the county elec­tion — which could have a pro­found im­pact on the U.S. coal in­dustry, and on ef­forts to curb glob­al warm­ing — has drawn a na­tion­al spot­light. With it has come nearly a mil­lion dol­lars in out­side spend­ing, poured in­to polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tees to in­flu­ence the race — in­clud­ing five and six-fig­ure dona­tions from a Wyom­ing coal com­pany and a group run by a Cali­for­nia bil­lion­aire and ma­jor donor to Pres­id­ent Obama.

“If, two years ago, some­body had dropped $25,000 in out­side ex­pendit­ures on a loc­al race, that would have been huge,” says Todd Donovan, a pro­fess­or of polit­ic­al sci­ence at West­ern Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity. “It’s an or­der of mag­nitude more than we’ve ever seen. It’s so much it’s hard to fig­ure out how they’re go­ing to spend it.”

What­com res­id­ents are be­ing bom­barded with fli­ers, ra­dio ads, phone calls and door-to-door cam­paign­ers ur­ging them to vote for or against coun­cil can­did­ates be­lieved to sup­port a pro­posed $600 mil­lion port, the Gate­way Pa­cific Ter­min­al, which, if con­struc­ted, would ship 48 mil­lion tons of coal an­nu­ally from Wyom­ing and Montana to Asia. Coal-fired power plants — the chief cause of glob­al warm­ing — are shut­ter­ing in the U.S. thanks in part to Obama’s new cli­mate change reg­u­la­tions. Coal com­pan­ies see the Gate­way ter­min­al as an eco­nom­ic life­line. En­vir­on­ment­al groups see it as a cli­mate dis­aster in the mak­ing. And the What­com County Coun­cil will play an out­sized role in de­term­in­ing the fate of the port: Over the next two years, the coun­cil will vote on two cru­cial sit­ing per­mits which, if ap­proved, could pave the way to the port’s con­struc­tion. If the coun­cil re­jects the per­mits, it could freeze the pro­ject for years, per­haps per­man­ently.

At the be­gin­ning of 2013, the Wash­ing­ton, D.C.-based League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters scanned all elec­tions tak­ing place across the coun­try, and chose three that it be­lieved could have a ma­jor im­pact on glob­al-warm­ing policy. It then teamed up with a re­l­at­ively new group, Nex­t­Gen Cli­mate Ac­tion, foun­ded by Cali­for­nia bil­lion­aire Tom Stey­er, an Obama donor who has led cam­paigns to pro­tect his home state’s cap-and-trade law, and to urge the pres­id­ent to re­ject the Key­stone XL pipeline.

“We iden­ti­fied three places where cli­mate was very clearly on the bal­lot. We want to show up and we have to play to win,” says Nav­in Nayak, polit­ic­al dir­ect­or for the League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters. The green groups chose to in­vest heav­ily in the Vir­gin­ia gov­ernor’s race, a June spe­cial elec­tion for Mas­sachu­setts sen­at­or — and the What­com County coun­cil race.

“Tom’s view is that cli­mate and cli­mate change solu­tions need to be on the bal­lot in a way they nev­er have be­fore,” says Mi­chael Ca­sey, a con­sult­ant with Nex­t­Gen Cli­mate Ac­tion. “What’s com­mon to all three ef­forts is that Tom is in these races be­cause he sees a sig­ni­fic­ant dif­fer­ence between the can­did­ates.”

Here’s the twist: Typ­ic­ally, en­vir­on­ment­al groups are vastly out­matched in polit­ic­al spend­ing by the fossil fuel and in­dustry groups they op­pose. In the 2012 cam­paign cycle, for ex­ample, coal and oth­er in­dustry groups teamed to­geth­er on a cam­paign de­clar­ing that Obama and Demo­crats who sup­por­ted cli­mate policy were wa­ging “War on Coal.” The top-spend­ing out­side groups back­ing con­ser­vat­ive can­did­ates in­cluded Amer­ic­an Cross­roads, which spent $176 mil­lion; Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity, the group linked with the con­ser­vat­ive oil bil­lion­aires Charles and Dav­id Koch, which spent $36 mil­lion; and the Cham­ber of Com­merce, which spent $35 mil­lion. The League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters, far and away the biggest-spend­ing en­vir­on­ment­al group in 2012, spent just $14 mil­lion. But this year, in the three races in which they chose to play, the green groups have out­spent the coal and fossil fuel in­dustry—and it ap­pears pos­sible that they’ll get a three-for-three vic­tory for their in­vest­ments.


The What­com county race is un­usu­al in ways bey­ond its pos­sible im­pact on the glob­al cli­mate. Be­cause the coun­cil func­tions as a ju­di­cial pan­el — a sort of mini-court — mem­bers can’t pub­licly state how they’d vote on the coal port. But based on state­ments the can­did­ates have made more gen­er­ally about the en­vir­on­ment and eco­nomy, green groups are pay­ing for cam­paign ma­ter­i­al to sup­port four Demo­crat­ic and pro­gress­ive can­did­ates, while an out­side group fun­ded by coal in­terests is back­ing four con­ser­vat­ive can­did­ates.

Wash­ing­ton Con­ser­va­tion Voters Ac­tion Fund, which op­poses the coal ter­min­al has to date raised $671,202, in­clud­ing $150,000 from the na­tion­al League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters, and $275,000 from Nex­t­Gen. Spend­ing in sup­port of the ter­min­al is a PAC called Save What­com, which has raised $165,641 to date, chiefly with con­tri­bu­tions from a Wyom­ing coal com­pany, Cloud Peak, and an Ohio com­pany, Glob­al Coal Sales.

Op­pon­ents of the ter­min­al see the en­vir­on­ment­al groups, and bil­lion­aire Stey­er, as the big-money out-of-state in­flu­en­cers, musc­ling their way in­to a loc­al is­sue. “The oth­er side is us­ing out-of-state money. And the out­side money, that’s the biggest dif­fer­ence,” says Kris Hal­ter­man, a What­com County book­keep­er who cre­ated the Save What­com PAC. “If we were to lose we would be dev­ast­ated eco­nom­ic­ally.”

The group act­ively so­li­cited con­tri­bu­tions from the out-of-state coal com­pan­ies that would be­ne­fit from con­struc­tion of the coal ter­min­al. “It al­lowed us to put out fli­ers and phone calls with our mes­saging,” she says.

For now, the out­come of the What­com race re­mains un­cer­tain, since there is no polling in the loc­al race and the cash con­tin­ues to flow.

“A week ago, it looked like the League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters was so far ahead, they had this thing,” says Donovan, the West­ern Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity pro­fess­or. But now with fresh coal money pour­ing in at the homestretch, “it could level the play­ing field. The can­did­ates could go to bed that night and not know the out­come.”


In Vir­gin­ia, green groups homed in on the gov­ernor’s race be­cause the Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ate, At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Cuc­cinelli, had emerged as a lead­ing na­tion­al skep­tic of the sci­ence of glob­al warm­ing, and of ef­forts to stop glob­al warm­ing policy.

Over­all, Demo­crat­ic can­did­ate Terry McAul­iffe has vastly out­raised Cuc­cinelli, haul­ing in $26 mil­lion in con­tri­bu­tions to the Re­pub­lic­an’s $16 mil­lion. En­ergy com­pan­ies and en­vir­on­ment­al groups emerged as the biggest spend­ers — with green groups once again out­spend­ing fossil fuels.

Al­though McAul­iffe, a former Demo­crat­ic fundaiser, is hardly known as a green cham­pi­on, en­vir­on­ment­al­ists are back­ing him in or­der to en­sure that Cuc­ccinelli, who came un­der par­tic­u­lar fire from the en­vir­on­ment­al com­munity after launch­ing a two-year probe in­to the work of former Uni­versity of Vir­gin­ia cli­mate sci­ent­ist Mi­chael Mann, would lose. After the Demo­crat­ic Gov­ernors’ As­so­ci­ation, the largest single con­trib­ut­or to McAul­iffe’s cam­paign is the Vir­gin­ia chapter of the League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters, which donated $1.6 mil­lion to the Demo­crat. Nex­t­Gen gave $674,000. The Si­erra Club kicked in $144,000.

“People who don’t be­lieve in cli­mate change should lose their jobs,” says Ca­sey, the Nex­t­Gen con­sult­ant.

McAul­iffe was happy to ride the wave of the green groups’ sup­port. Al­though he’s nev­er been out­spoken about the need for cli­mate policy—and at times waffled on wheth­er he backed Obama’s cli­mate reg­u­la­tions — his cam­paign did run TV ads bash­ing Cuc­cinelli for his probe of cli­mate sci­ent­ist Mann, and ap­peared with Mann on the cam­paign trail.

On the oth­er side, the en­ergy in­dustry donated $922,619 — more than any oth­er in­dustry group — to Cuc­cinelli’s cam­paign. More than half that money — $509,714 — came from coal com­pan­ies, in bundles of $50,000 or $60,000. Richard Bax­ter Gil­li­am, a ma­jor donor to Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate Mitt Rom­ney’s 2012 cam­paign, and the founder of the Vir­gin­ia coal com­pany Cum­ber­land Re­sources, donated $100,000. But for once, coal’s lar­gesse was out­matched by en­vir­on­ment­al­ists.

Mur­ray En­ergy Cor­por­a­tion, an Ohio-based coal com­pany that con­tends that coal has no link to cli­mate change, donated $80,000 to Cuc­cinelli’s cam­paign. “Mr. Cuc­cinelli has sup­por­ted the jobs in the United States coal in­dustry. His op­pon­ent has not,” wrote Mur­ray spokes­man Gary Broad­bent in an email to Na­tion­al Journ­al. Asked why the coal in­dustry had not come close to match­ing the en­vir­on­ment­al groups in spend­ing to de­feat Cuc­cinelli, Broad­bent wrote, “We have no com­ment on that.”


In Mas­sachu­setts, the green groups in­ves­ted heav­ily in back­ing Demo­crat­ic Rep. Ed Mar­key in his cam­paign for sen­at­or in a June spe­cial elec­tion. Mar­key, who won hand­ily, had already been a fa­vor­ite in that elec­tion, and it was hardly un­usu­al for Mas­sachu­setts Demo­crat to back cli­mate policy. But Mar­key made cli­mate change his polit­ic­al rais­on d’etre. In his re­lent­less fo­cus on the is­sue, he emerged as something new: a cli­mate can­did­ate.

And Mar­key was re­war­ded. The League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters was the top con­trib­ut­or to his cam­paign, giv­ing $188,671, while spend­ing $821,000 on ad­vert­ising in sup­portd of Mar­key. The idea in that race, says Nayak, was “to show can­did­ates—if you talk about cli­mate, if you’re a cli­mate cham­pi­on— we have your back.”

So why didn’t the coal in­dustry spend more to pro­tect it­self in 2013? As with Mur­ray En­ergy, rep­res­ent­at­ives from sev­er­al coal com­pan­ies that had spent the three key races did not re­turn calls or emails, or de­clined to an­swer the ques­tion. In D.C., the Amer­ic­an Co­ali­tion for Clean Coal Elec­tri­city, which rep­res­ents most of the coun­try’s biggest coal com­pan­ies and which spent over $30 mil­lion on “War on Coal” themed ad­vert­ising dur­ing 2012, said elec­tions haven’t been its fo­cus this year; Obama’s coal-plant lim­its have.

“It’s an off-elec­tion cycle year,” wrote Laura Shee­han, a spokes­wo­man for the coal group. “The in­dustry is fo­cused on the EPA and try­ing to lim­it the dam­age its pro­posed and com­ing regs will have on jobs, busi­nesses and con­sumers who will bear the brunt of the con­sequences through high­er en­ergy bills.”

Shee­han’s point Is well taken. While green groups were able to make their mark this year in a hand­ful of races, it’s hard to see how they’ll be able to re­peat that ef­fort dur­ing next year’s con­gres­sion­al midterm elec­tions, or in the fol­low­ing pres­id­en­tial elec­tion cycle, when con­ser­vat­ive su­per­PACs and oth­er in­terest groups are ex­pec­ted to come back out with spend­ing in full force. Ac­cord­ingly, Nayak says his group is likely to re­peat its strategy from this year and pick a small num­ber of races in which cli­mate is­sues are clearly on the bal­lot and spend heav­ily on those.

What We're Following See More »
Pelosi Won't Back Down on SOTU
2 hours ago
Cohen Postpones Testimony
3 hours ago
Trump Recognizes Guaido as Interim Venezuelan President
3 hours ago
Sheila Jackson-Lee Resigns as CBC Foundation Chair
4 hours ago
Trump Says He's Delivering SOTU as Planned
4 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.