Heavy Breathing:
Energy Industry Campaign Contributions

Twenty two million Americans were diagnosed with asthma in 2005.[i] Of this total, 6.2 million are children.[ii] Asthma accounts for 14 million lost days of school every year and a cost of $3.2 billion to treat asthma sufferers under the age of 18.

Recent studies have pointed to the role of air pollution in new cases of asthma. According to analysis of these studies by the American Lung Association, increases in particle pollution have lead to an increase in hospitalizations for children with asthma and an increase in the severity of asthma attacks as well.[iii]

And while more and more children are being diagnosed with this disease, especially in urban areas, Congress and the Bush Administration have done little to adopt stricter standards for pollution output. They have gone along with the recommendations of energy industry lobbyists and executives instead of following the recommendations of scientific experts advising the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). [iv]Year after year, legislation to strengthen standards never gets beyond a hearing, while energy interests get countless subsidies and weakened regulations.

Secrets Are No Fun

Since the beginning of the current administration, questions have been raised about meetings held between the Vice President Dick Cheney's office and representatives from the energy industry. These meetings are held with little or no record and without representatives from environmental organizations-or often even the EPA.

• In 2001, Vice President Cheney chaired an energy task force that met with over 300 groups and individuals secretly[v]. The Administration refused to release these names through six years of legal battles. Recently, a list of the meetings' participants was leaked to the public giving "a clearer picture of the task force's priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups -- many of them big contributors to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party."[vi] These contributors included oil companies British Petroleum and Exxon Mobil, electric utility companies Duke Energy and Constellation Energy Group, and several trade associations including the American Petroleum Institute.

• While 13 environmental groups shared just one meeting, representatives from the oil & gas industry attended multiple individual meetings.[vii] President Bush received $1.9 million from the oil and gas industry for his 2000 bid[viii], and another $2.6 million for his 2004 campaign.[ix]

• In 2005, as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) inserted a provision into the Clean Air Act that was hailed by industry and panned by public interest groups[x]. The proposed provision would have allowed communities whose air pollution originated in other states to delay enforcement of national air quality standards until the guilty districts cleaned up their air-a provision that would have basically exempted everyone from responsibility[xi]. Rep. Barton received $2.4 million from the energy sector from 1989-2006.[xii]

• At a meeting on June 4^th 2007, the Vice President's office met with energy industry representatives to talk about EPA standards for national air ambient quality and ozone levels. However, the EPA was not present.[xiii] A short list of attendees was identified as attending this meeting including the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, American Forest and Paper Association, International Truck and Engine, Hunter & Williams, and Latham & Watkins.[xiv] From 1999 to 2006, contributions to federal campaigns from the timber and the auto manufacturers industries totaled $31 million, with 75 percent going to Republicans.[xv] Bill Wehrum, the current acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, was once a lobbyist representing the timber industry at Latham &Watkins[xvi].

Code Red vs. Code Green

The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a color-coded scale that reports the daily air quality and its effects. The scale is based on five pollutants known to affect the public's health and have a direct impact on the severity and frequency on asthma attacks[xvii]. Unfortunately, simply following AQI standards will not prevent the onset of these attacks since 136 million people live in areas that violate ozone standards and one in five Americans live within 10 miles of a coal-burning power plant which produce sulfur dioxide and particle pollution.[xviii] According to the National Resource Defense Council, adopting stricter standards of air quality would give states more power to stop polluters and encourage power plants to utilize cleaner fuels[xix]. Even the EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, admitted in a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that "the current standard is insufficient to protect public health"[xx].

With the White House and an administration that has been secretly setting environmental policies at the behest of the energy industry who generously funded their rise to power, the role of these funds must be questioned in the drafting of these energy policies.

Clean Elections

Clean Elections campaign reform is already law in Maine, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut as well as Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Clean Elections cuts the ties between special interest money and public policy by allowing participating candidates to run for office without seeking large contributions from insider lobbyists and well heeled special interests. Clean Elections candidates qualify for a grant to run their campaign by collecting a set number small dollar contributions (usually $5). Once qualified, these candidates must adhere to strict spending limits and must forgo all campaign fundraising. Clean Elections candidates are accountable to the voters who elected them, not the special interests who would have financed their campaign.

The health of Americans should be of utmost important to members of Congress and the executive branch. Clean Elections would put voters-and their health-in the driver seats and the policies of the energy industry in the trunk.

[i] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Asthma Control Program, 2007.

[ii] American Lung Association, Asthma and Children Fact Sheet, August 2006.

[iii] American Lung Association, State of the Air Report 2004, April 29, 2004.

[iv] Union of Concerned Scientists, EPA Air Pollution Decision Threatens Public Health, December 2006.

[v] Washington Post, Paper Detail Industry's Role in Cheney's Energy Report, July 18, 2007

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Washington Post. Energy Task Force Meetings Participants. July 18, 2007

[viii] U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) data coded by industry by the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) for the 2000 election cycle. Includes contributions from individuals ($200+) and Political Action Committees (PACs) to federal campaigns

[ix] U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) data coded by industry by the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) for the 2004 election cycle. Includes contributions from individuals ($200+) and Political Action Committees (PACs) to federal campaigns

[x] New York Times, Change to the Clean Air Act is Built into New Energy Bill, April 16, 2005.

[xi] Ibid

[xii] Public Campaign Analysis of U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) data coded by industry by the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) for the 2000-2006 election cycles. Includes contributions from individuals ($200+) and Political Action Committees (PACs) to federal campaigns

[xiii] Waste News, EPA boss defends smog plan to senators, July 23, 2007.

[xiv] Office of Management and Budget (OMB), http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2060/meetings/611.html.

[xv] Public Campaign Analysis of U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) data coded by industry by the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) for the 2000-2006 election cycles. Includes contributions from individuals ($200+) and Political Action Committees (PACs) to federal campaigns

[xvi] Washington Post, Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark, January 31, 2004.

[xvii] Ibid

[xviii] National Resource Defense Council: Asthma and Air Pollution, 2005.

[xix] Ibid

[xx] Waste News, EPA boss defends smog plan to senators, July 23, 2007.