Senate Hearing Calls out the Influence of Dark Money in Blocking Climate Action

mikulka color
on

Today Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) led a hearing of Senate Democratsโ€™ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis, which examinedย โ€œDark Money and Barriers to Climate Action.โ€ The testimony of the expert panel and the questions and observations from senators reinforced the overwhelming influence of money โ€” and specifically untraceable donations known as โ€œdark moneyโ€ย โ€” working against action on climateย change.

Sen.ย Whitehouse called out the considerableย investment by the fossil fuel industry and dark money interestsย in the Republican Party, which has gained a reputation as the party of climate scienceย denial.

โ€œMuch of itย was used to impose climate denial orthodoxy on the Republican party,โ€ said Whitehouse. โ€œAnd why not spend a few billion dollars? Buying or renting the Republican Party or seizing it in a hostile takeover โ€ฆ was a totalย bargain.โ€

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) noted that funding from powerful special interests has mired congressional action on other issues, such as gun control. He pointed to strongย public supportย for reducing gun violence but a lack of responseย byย Congress.

โ€œWeโ€™ve already won the battle for public opinionโ€ on guns, said Schatz,ย who went on toย draw a comparison with climate change because a majority of Americansย want politicians to take โ€œaggressiveโ€ action,ย but elected officials continue to fall farย short.

Sen. Schatz asked Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science and expert on climate science denial,ย to comment on the role ofย fossil fuel industry funding in fostering this disconnect between public opinion and Congressional action, calling it โ€œstructural control ofย Congress.โ€

โ€œI think that we make a mistake,โ€ said Schatz of some members of Congress, โ€œto misunderstand their willingness to incur political risk on the โ€˜I had a bad day in the newspaperโ€™ side when their true fear is โ€˜I had a bad day on the Super PACย side.โ€™ย And thatโ€™s what this is allย about.โ€

โ€œClearly this is the case,โ€ Oreskes affirmed, โ€œWe are seeing the ways in which members of Congress are controlled by the fossil fuelย industry.โ€

The hearing featured a number of insights from the witnesses, but perhaps the most important points came from Sen. Whitehouse and Sen. Schatz: that the fossil fuel industry has โ€œstructural controlโ€ of Congress, and that is why the U.S. has failed to address the climateย crisis.

Testimony on Dark Moneyย Influence

Justin Farrell, Associate Professor of Sociology at Yale University, testified about his research into the influence of dark money in funding climate science denial efforts. His comments will be familiar to readers of DeSmog. Farrell discussed fossil fuel funding of climate science-denying think tanks, fake grassrootsย groups, and fringe scientists, which create a disorienting web of disinformation for the American public.ย ย ย 

โ€œThese financed efforts created the appearance of scientific credibility,โ€ said Farrell,ย โ€œso when the average American citizen turned on cable news, listened to talk radio, or read the morning newspaper, they could not tell the difference between fossil fuel propaganda and trustedย science.โ€

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) echoed Farrell’s point, recalling howย some constituents once said to him, โ€œHere is the problem. How do we know what toย believe?โ€

In his opening comments, Farrell highlighted how the rise of untraceable dark money has made efforts to expose climate scienceย denial propaganda more difficult. โ€œSpecifically, the rise of untraceable donor-directed philanthropy โ€” such as Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund โ€” has made it very difficult for researchers to continue their work,โ€ heย said.

Multiple experts during the hearing reiterated that exposing the funders of misinformation campaigns could โ€œinoculateโ€ the public against the impacts of their efforts. Thatย is whyย dark money โ€” which is so hard to expose โ€” is soย effective.

Bottom Line: Get Money Out ofย Politics

During the hearing, Oreskes explained that when she asked climate scientists about the best way to address inaction on the climate crisis,ย they often told her, โ€œWe need campaign financeย reform.โ€

Oreskes agreed but also stressed the need to remove dark money, in particular,ย from politics. โ€œWe need both,โ€ she said. โ€œWorking on campaign finance and exposing the darkย money.โ€

Sen. Whitehouse traced the current uphill battle to the pivotal 2010 Supreme Court decision, which opened the door to limitless election spending by corporationsย on matters like climate change, and led to the rise of Super PACs (political actionย committees).

โ€œThere is sort ofย a cascade that has happened,โ€ said Whitehouse.ย โ€œA cascade into darkness that happened with the Citizens United decision that opened unlimited special interestย money.โ€

He then went on to say that even if the public knows how much dark money is being spent in politics and can trace the source of the money, one major challengeย remains:

โ€œThe hardest partย is to try to figure out about the conversations that took place โ€” powered by the unlimited dark money capability that these special interests have. The hardest thing to find around here is the small room where the lobbyists and the candidate met and the lobbyists said, โ€˜We are coming after you, you are toast, if you donโ€™t do what we say.’ And the candidate realizing that with millions, billions of potential dark money spending to drop, that is a very real threat โ€ฆ Ultimately, the threats thatย Citizens Unitedย enabled are the darkest part ofย this.โ€

In other words: Until the U.S. political system changes and limits the amount of money, and its corresponding power,ย in politics, the deck will remain stacked in favor of the fossil fuel industry when it comes to Congressional action onย climate.

Main image: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.ย Credit: Screen shot fromย Dark Money and Barriers to Climate Action hearingย testimony

mikulka color
Justin Mikulka is a research fellow at New Consensus. Prior to joining New Consensus in October 2021, Justin reported for DeSmog, where he began in 2014. Justin has a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.
on

The Heartland Institute, which questions human-made climate change, has established a new branch in London.

The Heartland Institute, which questions human-made climate change, has established a new branch in London.
on

At McNeese State Universityโ€™s LNG center, โ€œwe want to ensure that our LNG industry has a major say in research direction,โ€ one of its project leaders wrote.

At McNeese State Universityโ€™s LNG center, โ€œwe want to ensure that our LNG industry has a major say in research direction,โ€ one of its project leaders wrote.
on

But experts say these โ€œabusiveโ€ lawsuits, which are designed to demoralize and drain resources from activists, should be fought, not feared.

But experts say these โ€œabusiveโ€ lawsuits, which are designed to demoralize and drain resources from activists, should be fought, not feared.