PaperTrail Blog

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT: Less Clean Coal Lobbying? Not Exactly

By Marianne Lavelle | April 28, 2009, 2:15 pm

An Obama supporter sports a clean coal poster, provided by the industry-backed American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. (Courtesy of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) Don’t think that the “clean coal” blitz faded in the first months of the Obama administration just because newly filed disclosure forms show an 85 percent drop-off in lobbying by the companies participating in the effort.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity reported $360,000 in lobbying on climate change legislation in the first quarter of 2009 — a huge fall from $2.1 million the group averaged in spending per quarter in 2008. But that doesn’t reflect any actual rollback in the group’s aggressive effort to influence legislation, which were recently detailed by the Center.

Instead, the new numbers reflect a decision by the group to change the accounting method it uses to report the expenses — perfectly permissible under the arcane rules of lobbying disclosure.

Ever since the lobbying reforms of 1995, corporations and interest groups have had a few options to choose from when answering that enduring question: “What, exactly, is lobbying?” The Lobbying Disclosure Act answers the question one way. The Internal Revenue Service, which cares about making sure businesses do not deduct lobbying expenses against taxable income, defines lobbying in a different way entirely. Rather than settle on a single definition, Congress decided to make the whole thing multiple choice.

Last year ACCCE opted to use the IRS definition — in many ways, the more expansive view. That approach encompasses, for instance, a lobbying organization’s efforts to organize “grassroots” campaigns on its behalf. That’s something ACCCE does avidly, with a “citizens’ army” that it says now numbers 200,000 people. State lobbying also must be included under the IRS method, and there, too, ACCCE was hard at work. For example, the Kansas Ethics Commission reports the clean coal group and its predecessor organization, the Center for Energy and Economic Development, spent $88,595 lobbying Topeka in 2008. It was part of a surge of lobbying stemming from Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ administration’s denial of permits for two coal-fired power plants proposed for southwest Kansas, and the state legislature’s failed effort to overturn the decisions.

In any case, by using the IRS method, ACCCE’s lobbying totaled $9.95 million in 2008, which, as the Center reported, was more than any other group focused on global warming legislation. But ACCCE Vice President Joe Lucas said the group decided to reevaluate after noting that most of the other groups appeared to use the Lobbying Disclosure Act definition, which only covers direct lobbying. Lucas said ACCCE’s direct lobbying expenses for 2008 would have been “significantly less than $1 million.”

“We… generally take the ‘better safe than sorry’ approach, and choose to report the most info (as opposed to less) if it is a choice of one or the other,” Lucas wrote in an email. But after media accounts — including the Center’s — compared its spending to that of other groups, without delving into the niceties of the varied accounting methods, he said the group decided to switch methods to provide “a more accurate comparison.”

For the record, a quick look through the climate change lobbyists’ activities in the fourth quarter of 2008 shows that about 30 percent of filers used the IRS method. It’s popular among trade associations — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and others — because it simplifies bookkeeping. And there’s another advantage: contacts with most executive branch officials are not considered lobbying under the IRS accounting method. So companies or organizations that have a lot of contacts with the administration (defense contractors are an example) often choose the IRS method, so that lobbying doesn’t have to be disclosed.

No matter the accounting method, in other words, there’s a lot that’s not being captured in those disclosure forms. And lobby watchers have to keep an eye on what the interest groups are doing, not just what they’re saying. Otherwise, given ACCCE’s prominence in the climate change debate, it could well look like lobbying is cooling down, just as action on global warming policy is heating up.

Follow the Center on Twitter and Facebook.

Next entry: MONEY & POLITICS: Arlen Specter’s Switch Could Prove Costly
Previous entry: STATES: Ethics Rules — April 27 Edition

Comments (2) | Add a comment Email this Print this

Comments

Posted by: frank67 on April 29, 2009, 1:37 pm

Clean coal is the ultimate oxymoron. And only a moron believes in clean coal.
Posted by: peter28moss@yahoo.com on April 30, 2009, 4:29 pm

PROPOSED TEXT OF VERMONT FAIRNESS DOCTRINE LAW

The Vermont Senate and House of Representatives in the 2005-2006 Legislative Session hereby enact S.237/H.220 to provide candidates for elected office equal access to funds and media, to be popularly known as the Vermont Fairness Doctrine.

S.237 introduced by Senator Collins of Swanton
H.220 introduced by Representative Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Statement of Purpose: The Legislature finds that elections based on purchased name recognition produce unrepresentative and undemocratic results, precluding representative democracy in Vermont, as in the U.S. Selecting fast food by name recognition is acceptable and will deliver standardized taste and all the calories and cholesterol expected. Electing political candidates by name recognition will deliver self-interested legislators seeking primarily re-election. The provisions of the Vermont Fairness Doctrine Law below will replace money politics with issue politics and will encourage candidates to propose laws to cure current problems in the public interest, not to serve their donors.

TITLE I: LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
Section (a). In support of the U.S. Supreme Court’s one-person-one-vote to maintain a level playing field and prevent the rich from buying the office for their candidate and then buying their candidate’s vote on specific issues, all campaign funds from whatever source shall be pooled for each office in the primary and in the general elections.

Section (b). All campaign fund balances of all federal and state candidates shall be pooled as of the effective date of this act.

Section (c). Any wealthy candidate who wishes to contribute his own personal funds shall do so only by paying into the pool for his office.

Section (d). The pool for each office shall be maintained in a separate bank account, managed and disbursed only by the Anti Bribery Commission (ABC).

Section (e). Disbursements shall be made only by the ABC upon certified invoices from the media and other vendors, and debited to each candidate’s campaign balance. ABC shall provide statements of campaign balances to each candidate periodically and on demand.

TITLE II: EQUAL TIME/EQUAL SPACE

Section (a). Vermont media, including video, audio, and Internet broadcasters, and print media including newspapers, magazines and all other regularly published and widely disseminated printed matter shall provide equal time/equal space to all legally qualified candidates for any elective office to be voted on by Vermont voters. Any broadcast or print media which presents any legally qualified candidate on any newscast, interview, documentary, on-the-spot coverage, news, editorial, op-ed or letter to the editor, such media must afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting or differing views on issues of public importance. Cf. 47 U.S.C. §307(c)(1), 47 U.S.C. §315(a)(4).

Section (b). Nothing in this act shall compel any media to provide any time or space to any candidate, contest or issue, but if one or more candidates are provided time or space, those denied time or space shall have civil remedy for violation of their First Amendment right to free speech. The civil remedy shall be ten times the value of the time or space denied, and shall carry a finding of free speech violation by the court.

Section (c). Before any publication subject to this act, the media shall obtain a list of all legally qualified candidates for such elective office from the Elections Division of the Vermont Secretary of State.

Section (d). Media are permitted to charge candidates at regular pre-specified rates for air time or print space by charging the first advertiser a multiple to cover for the others. If a given display ad (or 30 second spot) used to cost $100 and there are 5 candidates, the first candidate pays $500 and the next 4 publish free.

TITLE III: ANTI BRIBERY COMMISSION

Section (a). There is hereby created a quasi-judicial body to be known as the ANTI BRIBERY COMMISSION, specifically to enforce the provisions of this act in accordance with Vermont Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21. Bribery, 13 V.S.A. §1101 and 1102, and as further provided below.

Section (b). The Anti Bribery Commission and each member shall be dedicated to the enforcement of this act, to insure that candidates run on a level field and all voters, not just the rich, select and elect candidates and decide the political issues. The ABC shall consist of 12 members and members shall be elected for staggered 2-year terms in general elections, based on their relevant experience background, moral character, demonstrated dedication to the ABC’s goal, and credibility.

Section (c). The ABC shall be empowered to investigate, prosecute and enforce judgment against all bribers and bribees. The burden of proof shall be shared as follows: ABC must establish that money changed hands, and the bribers and bribees must convince a unanimous jury of 12 that there was no bribery and no corrupt intent. The ABC shall be fine financed.

Section (d). Notwithstanding the Vermont Chapter 21 fine and imprisonment provisions, this act provides bribers and bribees a fine of three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust or profit under Vermont or under the United States. Cf. 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(4). For example, three times the thing of value amounts to 3 times $155,000 per year times 2 years, amounting to a fine of $930,000 for donating to a U.S. House candidate or $2,790,000 for donating to a U.S. Senate campaign.

Section (e). Nothing in this act shall prohibit or prevent any payment to a pool of candidates for any elective office.

Add a comment

Do you have an opinion about this post?
Log in / Register to become part of the conversation!

Receive important updates by e-mail.

Forget your password?

User registration

Become a fan
Follow the Center

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter and get the latest from our in-depth investigations, articles, interviews, blogs, videos, and more.

Your support will help us bring you more investigations, articles, interviews and news related materials relevant to U.S. politics and politics abroad.

The Center for Public Integrity is dedicated to producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public concern in the USA and around the world.

More about the Center

The Center’s International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) is a collaboration of some of the world’s leading investigative reporters. ICIJ extends globally the Center’s style of watchdog journalism, working with 100 reporters in 50 countries to produce long-term, transnational projects.

ICIJ website