Environmental Groups Exposed: ‘Every Dollar Spent Has Been Aimed At Helping Democrats’

This is for those of you out there who still believe that radical environmental groups are actually non-partisan. An ongoing investigation into the finances of these groups reveal their true agendas.

On Setember 28, 2008, Greenwire reported how environmental groups are really nothing more than an advocacy arm of the Democrats.

Inhofe blog excerpts the Greenwire report:

With the 2008 campaign in the homestretch, major environmental groups are spending money and time on a half-dozen or so congressional candidates who figure to play prominent roles in future Capitol Hill energy and conservation debates. The charge is being led by the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club. While the three have endorsed dozens of congressional candidates, each has focused on just a couple of contests. The environmentalists have spent more than $3 million in congressional races on "independent expenditures" -- essentially campaigns the groups are running to assist or attack a particular candidate, campaign finance records show. That amount does not include campaign contributions given directly to the candidates, though those dollars tend to represent only a small percentage of the amount the organizations actually spend in a typical election year. And while environmental groups have endorsed a number of Republican candidates, since the start of the fall campaign, every dollar spent by these organizations has been aimed at helping Democrats. ... One other contest that has crept onto the radar of at least one environmental group is the Minnesota Senate race between Sen. Norm Coleman (R) and comedian and talk show host Al Franken (D). Environment America has in the last week spent roughly $200,000 on mailings there. The other contests in which environmentalists have spent money in recent weeks, though not in overwhelming amounts: the Oregon Senate race between Sen. Gordon Smith (R) and former state House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D), the North Carolina Senate race between Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) and state Sen. Kay Hagan (D), the Alaska House race between Rep. Don Young (R) and former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz (D), and the contest for the New Mexico 1st District seat currently held by Rep. Heather Wilson (R). In every instance, the environmental groups are backing the Democrat. According to Federal Election Commission records, the groups have spent just over $2 million on that contest. LCV leads the pack, with over $730,000 spent on the presidential race, with the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife trailing -- each having spent more than $500,000. Environment America has also spent about $140,000. The Sierra Club is the only one of those major environmental groups that has actually spent more money -- in fact, the overwhelming majority of it -- on the presidential race rather than congressional contests. And campaign finance records show that in many instances the environmentalists' efforts in the White House contest overlap with their efforts in the congressional races, as much of their money has been spent in the states of Colorado, New Mexico and New Hampshire -- all three have been considered battlegrounds. ... Indeed, the only Republican to see any support this year in the form of independent expenditures is Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, who lost his bid to fend off a primary challenge. Much of the environmentalists' activity has been centered on Colorado and New Mexico, where the groups have spent heavily on both the Senate contests and one House race in each state. In fact, the two Colorado races are currently the top targets for environmentalists' money, and they appear poised to stay that way through the election. The League of Conservation Voters has poured roughly $1 million into the Senate race between Rep. Mark Udall (D) and former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R), with more than a third of that money having been spent just since Labor Day. A couple of other groups have dropped a small amount of money into the contest, but their spending pales in comparison to LCV's. The Colorado Senate race has been ground zero for outside group spending, as not only environmentalists but also business groups and other organizations have poured millions into the contest. ... Oddly enough, the other race that has received the most money is not a high-profile Senate race or even one of the more closely watched House races. Defenders of Wildlife has poured roughly $1 million into their effort to topple Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R), whose 4th District covers much of the eastern half of the state. The group had long ago announced that it would launch a campaign effort to beat Musgrave akin to the one it used two years ago topple former House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), a three-term incumbent (E&E Daily, July 9). Musgrave has not been particularly visible on environmental issues during her time in Congress, having focused much of her effort on social policy. But environmentalists have said that because of the nature of her district, it was important to replace what they view as a staunchly anti-conservationist vote with a pro-conservationist one. Indeed, the group appears to have backed up its promises with cash, spending heavily on both advertising and direct voter outreach methods. Musgrave was already viewed as exceedingly vulnerable heading into the election, having received the lowest vote percentage of any winning candidate in the 2006 campaign. And most recent polls show her trailing Betsy Markey, a former State Department employee and aide to Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). There are other races in which environmentalists have spent tens of thousands of dollars, though none reach the level of spending in the two Colorado contests. Since Labor Day, environmentalists have dropped roughly $80,000 into the New Mexico Senate race between Rep. Tom Udall (D) and Rep. Steve Pearce (R). The groups spent heavily there over the summer, but their spending has tailed off in recent weeks as Udall has moved out to a comfortable lead, with polls showing the Democrat holding a lead of 15 percent or more. Additionally, environmental groups -- both LCV and the Sierra Club -- have in recent weeks started spending significant amounts in New Hampshire's Senate race on behalf of former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D), who is making a bid to topple Sen. John Sununu (R). In September and October, the groups have spent roughly $80,000 on various door-to-door efforts as well as phone banks and direct mail. Shaheen has consistently led in the polls in that contest, though recent polling has shown that the race has tightened slightly. ... Presidential spending Though environmentalists have also remained active in the presidential contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, as of this week, their overall spending in that race trails what they have spent in the congressional races.

Since these groups are being so partisan, they should lose any tax exempt status they hold.

You can access the complete areticle on-line here:

Environmental Groups Exposed: ‘Every Dollar Spent Has Been Aimed At Helping Democrats’
Marc Morano
Inhofe EPW Press Blog
October 22, 2008

Running On Empty: Democrat Energy Policies Ignore Reality

How much longer will they cling to the fantasy that alternative energy will get us off of foreign oil? What are these new technologies that will lead to some sort of prosperity?

We've already seen what a disastrous failure ethanol has been. The ethanol plan has a) caused us to use more oil than ever before b) caused an increase in gasoline prices and c) has lead to higher food prices. And ethanol was supposedly our best hope for an alternative energy source. What are the others? The truth is, they don't exist. Most of the ideas being vaguely alluded to by Barack Obama aren't even off of the planning boards and are not, in any way shape or form, proven to be a more efficient energy supply than petroleum.

So, why are the Dems so dead set on continuing these failed policies?

Fred Barnes, writing for the Weekly Standard notes a few things:

Advances in oil technology--which Obama either doesn't know about or chooses to ignore--allow drilling to go far deeper beneath the sea and thus farther from the coast. Some oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are nearly 200 miles from land. Serious spills from drilling offshore have become practically non-existent. More than 100 rigs in the Gulf were damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single spill. So Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, was wrong. Now, like other Democrats, he's in a politically awkward position. He opposes new drilling for oil and natural gas at a time when drilling in areas currently off limits has become popular. Three-fourths of likely voters in a new Zogby poll said they favor it, and Republicans have made it their top issue against Democrats. Democrats appear wary of saying they oppose any boost in domestic oil production, which happens to be the position of a powerful interest group, the environmental lobby. But despite soaring gasoline prices, Democrats are against opening new areas of federal land or offshore for exploitation of oil and natural gas reserves.

Perhaps that is the answer. The Dems are beholden to the radical environmental lobby and are willing to toss Joe and Jane Average American under the bus in order to placate the environmentalists. In other words, they want Joe and Jane Average American to pay for the failed policies of the liberal-leftists.

More:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week that the Democratic Congress is "moving America in a new direction for energy independence." But preserving the ban on offshore drilling isn't new. The ban has been in effect since 1981, but Pelosi said it's not responsible for high gasoline prices. Who's really to blame? The Bush administration and the oil companies, she said. Pelosi's most implausible claim is that energy companies are hoarding oil. If so, they're doing this as gasoline prices have reached a record high price. And these companies are the same ones that Democrats accuse of being greedy and reaping "obscene profits." Hoarding oil--keeping it off the market--certainly makes no economic sense, which is why oil companies aren't doing it. As supposed evidence, Democrats cite the absence of drilling in 68 million acres of federal oil reserves leased by oil companies. In truth, these areas are under active exploration that may lead to drilling. Drilling, of course, is the last step in oil production. Whatever Democrats may think, oil companies don't drill first, then explore later to find if drilling is actually worthwhile. Oil companies pay billions to the federal government each year for oil leases, most of which expire after 10 years. They pay an annual fee as well. In 2007, they paid $7 billion for oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone. Would they spend so much for leases and fail to follow up and look for oil? Not likely. Pelosi also made this boast: "The New Direction Congress has enacted into law the first new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in 32 years." The law would boost vehicle fuel standards to 35 miles a gallon--in 2020. But this legislation was entirely unnecessary. The free market is already increasing fuel efficiency. Car buyers are rushing to trade in gas guzzlers for vehicles with better mileage. And auto companies are closing plants that manufacture low mileage cars as fast as they can as they switch to building more efficient cars.

In other words, the Dems are all talk and no action. They will work their rear-ends off to satisfy a leftist lobby group, but will merely turn a cold shoulder to honest, hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Running On Empty
Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
June 23, 2008

Environmentalists And Oil Prices, Massive Gas Field Detected And More Calls For Border Agent Pardons

Michael Reagan takes a look at what environmentalists and the Democrats have forced upon us in the way of energy policy and how we have been 1) paying for it and 2) forced into a very humiliating position with OPEC as a result.

From his column:

Here we have the humiliating spectacle of a president of the United States begging an Arab potentate to increase our supply of oil while Democrats, who bear the major responsibility for the problem, scoff at him as a mendicant groveling at the feet of a foreign monarch. As humiliating as it is for the United States to be put in a position where our economy is held hostage to foreign oil producers who can make or break our nation simply by limiting their petroleum production, thus causing the price of oil to skyrocket, it is even more shameful that we have allowed the so-called environmental movement to escape the blame for our predicament. Make no mistake about it, you are paying exorbitant prices at the gas pump solely because the environmental terrorists and their Democrat allies in Congress have all but shut down our domestic oil production while refusing to allow the exploration and creation of new sources of this resource so vital to our economic health.

Michael pulls no punches here. Those are the facts and realities we are facing today. How many years have we Conservatives been warning people about this? Too many.

More:

George Bush should have stood on his bully pulpit and pointed his finger at Capitol Hill and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and said, “How dare you not give the nation an energy policy? Because you won’t give us an energy policy I have been forced to go the Saudi Arabia, get down on my knees and beg them to give us what you refuse to give us – an adequate supply of reasonably priced oil.” George Bush should point the finger of blame at Mrs. Pelosi and Sen. Reid and their environmentalist co-conspirators for refusing to enact an energy policy that dictates drilling in ANWR and the Florida Gulf -- where the Chinese and Cubans are drilling for the huge plentiful supply of oil beneath the seas to their heart’s content. We should also be harnessing nuclear power, and mining clean coal now locked up for alleged environmental reasons in well over a million acres of land in southwest Utah in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which contains at least 7 billion tons of coal worth over $1 trillion.

The problem is not that we don't have enough energy resources to fuel our needs. The problem is that we have these enviro-whackos who have bought off the leaders of the Democratic Party who in turn have forced us into the untenable position we are in right now.

We need to get rid of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and anyone else who smugly and arrogantly forces such unnecessary hardships on the American people.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Environmental Terrorism And The Price Of Oil
Michael Reagan
Human Events Online
January 18, 2008

---

And while we are talking about energy, check out this new discovery in the northeast United States:

A deep reservoir of long-hidden natural gas, stretching from New York through Pennsylvania and into West Virginia, could pump more than $400 billion into the Mid- Atlantic economy and push the U.S. toward energy independence, a Penn State researcher has found. Geosciences professor Terry Engelder, collaborating with Gary Lash at the State University of New York, recently completed the analysis after spending 30 years and an estimated $3 million on research. Penn State released overall findings on Thursday. State and industry experts said some companies already have begun to explore the prospects — with some early success within the past year or so. Engelder said the gas, lodged 6,000 to 7,000 feet underground, promises the U.S. “a certain amount of energy security down the line.”

As I wrote above, it's not that we don't have energy sources available.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Massive Gas Field Detected
Adam Smeltz
Centre Daily Times
January 18, 2008

---

And finally, we have more calls for the pardons of wrongly convicted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The calls came from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Rep. Duncan Hunter, both Republicans from California.

From the Washington Times:

Two California Republican congressmen yesterday called on President Bush to pardon two former U.S. Border patrol agents sent to prison a year ago this week for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks as he fled back into Mexico. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher accused Mr. Bush of being "arrogant and heartless" for refusing to pardon or commute the sentences of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were ordered last January to serve 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively. He said they had spent the past year in solitary confinement "suffering conditions worse than detainees at Guantanamo Bay. "It has been a year since Border Agents Ramos and Compean entered prison," Mr. Rohrabacher said. "This marks a year of shame for President Bush, who has been fully aware of the details of this blatant miscarriage of justice and chosen to do absolutely nothing about it. "The president has shown us his arrogant and heartless side by permitting the wrongful incarceration of Ramos and Compean to continue," he said.

At least the Dems can point to something that President Bush has done/is doing and say, "Hey! We aren't the only ones who are heartless and arrogant!"

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Rohrabacher, Hunter Call For Agents' Pardon
Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
January 18, 2008