Writer Karin Kirk and your editors discuss oil and gas contributions to newly elected leaders  » Yale Climate Connections

As the second Trump administration begins, we’re taking a closer look at how the oil and gas industry shaped the new federal executive and legislative branches. Yale Climate Connections regular contributor Karin Kirk dug into the industry’s campaign contributions in her article, “The fossil fuel industry spent $219 million to elect the new U.S. government.” Karin sat down with us – Editor-in-Chief Sara Peach, Features Editor Pearl Marvell, and Director of Audience Experience Sam Harrington – to talk about what she learned and where things go from here. 

This discussion has been edited and condensed.

Sara: Karin, for those who haven’t read the article, can you say briefly what that article is about and what you found?

Karin: Yeah, so it started out looking at the last election and just the simple dollar amounts from the oil and gas industry that went to almost every member of Congress, every senator, as well as the presidential campaigns. And this is made much easier through a nonprofit called Open Secrets. 

I looked at the money from all the elected branches of government, and then also the money over time. And that was the place where I started to get really surprised at how this has gotten so much worse, just in recent years, mostly since the 2010 Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited corporate money. And so the article has the numbers, has the links, but also has nice infographics, so you can just quickly see some summaries of where that money went and who was going to.

Sam: The chart you’re talking about that really shows the spike after the Citizens United decision was really wild to me. I’m from Wisconsin. Russ Feingold, my senator, was involved in that legislation [the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain–Feingold Act] that decision overturned. It was a really eye-opening story for me and I’m really glad that you dug into these numbers.

Pearl: What inspired you to look into this data?

Karin: The way I love to work is to start with a data set – start with an interesting question and a big bunch of numbers – and figure out how that can help us understand what’s happening in our world a little bit better. When you dig through it, you know it’s not something that most people see, even though it’s public, and so it does feel like you’re really like going down the basement with a flashlight. 

I think that’s the part of journalists: to take this information and then translate it. We can do a service of using those numbers and making them more accessible. 

I also feel like this is a moment in time to name names. It’s public data. It affects everybody, because everyone is affected by pollution, by climate, by your local energy company, by your energy bills. And people really need to see this. This is absolutely the time when we all need to kind of lean in and shine that bright light.

Sara: One thing that stood out to me, Karin, was how carefully you documented the partisan direction of the money flow. Could you talk a little bit about that? 

Karin: It was epically one-sided. It’s hugely partisan. And you know, as journalists, we want to be careful when we see that. You kind of want to tap the brakes and be like, “Am I getting this right? What am I possibly missing?” 

So I dug and dug and dug. And thanks to all of you, we really fact-checked this one and really made sure we got it right. And that’s what I mean about we need to bring this to light because it’s shockingly lopsided towards Republicans. Republicans are getting about  nine out of 10 of these dollars. And that’s not a surprise, but it was bigger than I thought. And I think documenting it as much as we can is really important. 

Sara: I think it’s really important for journalists to articulate the reality of the situation. I think, like you said, we get a little nervous when the picture looks one-sided because we’re taught to think about lots of different stakeholders and look at different perspectives, which is an incredibly important value of journalism. But another value of journalism is accurately depicting reality and helping our audiences understand what is in fact happening in the real world. 

Karin: Yeah. There’s an infographic that is a bar graph, but it’s actually stacks of dollar bills. And if you count those dollar bills, they are scaled exactly the same as if it were a bar graph.

And yes, Republicans have always gotten more money, but it used to be, as far back as the data goes, which was the 1992 presidential election, it used to be Democrats were getting about – and this is candidates only, not super PACs – but about $7 million and Republicans $14 million. And now Democrats still get the same amount. It hasn’t even changed. 

But Republicans are up to nearly $60 million. That says it all, when you consider the fact that air pollution used to be bipartisanly bad, and we used to agree that renewable energy was good for the patriotic sense of the U.S. and that wasting energy was not a good thing. Those used to be completely no-brainer, bipartisan things. And so you look at the amount of fossil fuel money in today’s elections, and you’re like, “Yep, that tracks with all the current messaging.” 

Sam: This is probably something that we don’t totally know the answer to, but it does also feel like a “Which came first: The chicken or the egg?” thing. Is the money influencing the extreme partisan swing that we’re seeing? Or is it responding to cultural shifts and deepening divides between the parties? I mean, it’s probably a little bit of both. But I do wonder, how do we expect that this money is influencing policy?

Karin: Yeah, that’s the perfect question, and there is a paper that we mentioned in the article that showed it was mostly rewarding past behavior rather than driving future behavior [Editor’s note: Several authors of the study are affiliated with the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, the publisher of this site.] But nowadays, I think it hardly matters. That stance is so lockstep that past behavior is going to be the same as future behavior. It just feels really like partisanship has gotten very hardened, and there’s just so little crossover and it’s a shame, right? Because the best politics comes from those crossover places. And in fact, when politicians dare cross over, that’s seen as a problem in and of itself. So yeah, this is one part of a much larger sort of political ecosystem problem. 

Sara: It’s really important to zoom out and think about what’s happening in the larger political system, and who has that influence. Because somebody like you or me, we could donate $25 to a candidate, but I certainly don’t have the resources to contribute a ton of money the way that some folks in the oil and gas industry do, and even if they’re rewarding past behavior, that is distorting the political system away from regular people and toward the industry’s interest. Because when you donate to a candidate, it’s with the intention of helping them win, and presumably some of these politicians who voted in favor of the industry’s interests and then were rewarded with additional campaign dollars were reelected, where maybe they wouldn’t have been otherwise. And so we’ve got folks in power who, for a variety of complex reasons, including this money, are voting against what oftentimes their constituents actually want.

Karin: Yeah, and that’s what I hated about writing this article, because it feels really intractable. And so what are you supposed to do? It is super discouraging. 

That said, the article does give some steps of what you can do, and we’re not powerless. But I don’t believe the whole, like, “A positive attitude is going to get us through this.” We need to bring everything we have and weather this the best we can and use every possible strategy. And so there are strategies in the article, but at the same time, I think it’s right to also be like, “Man, this is a terrible situation.” Both are true.

Pearl: I think part of the issue as well is that I dare say, there’s a large percentage of the American population that doesn’t understand – including myself before working on this article – the difference between a PAC, a super PAC, and a hybrid PAC. It has clothed itself in this lack of transparency. So education is key to making sure that the general public understands where money is coming from and how it funnels into these different candidates. Could you offer some insight into how people can gain that knowledge and understand PACs? Because even in editing this story, I still don’t know if I could really explain it to somebody at a party.

Karin: That’s such a good question. It reminds me a lot of explaining climate science. We don’t actually need to explain the super fine details, because as soon as people are like, “Oh, that’s larger than I can understand,” then the message loses its impact. 

So what I would suggest for people that want to go one step further than reading this article is go to Open Secrets and look at the candidate or the officeholder that interests you the most. Look at your senator, look at who you like, look at who you don’t like. That will feed a few more questions that you can then pursue. 

But I don’t think it’s important that people get into the weeds on the difference between a super PAC and a hybrid PAC. I think the main takeaways are all most people are going to need to start to connect the dots as to why their senator is saying a certain thing. And that’s what you bring to the dinner party. I wouldn’t say, “Do you know what a hybrid PAC is? But I’d definitely say “Hey, do you know what Tim Sheehy did?” That’s what people want to know. 

Tim Sheehy is Montana’s newest senator, and I was shocked. Usually, the longer they go in their career, the more money they get for rewarding past behavior. This guy just took office, but he’s already the second-highest recipient of oil and gas money among senators. He just got there. And so that’s the dinner party line. 

Sam: I wonder if we’re seeing the same sort of investment at the local and state levels. That always feels like where individuals can have the most political impact. 

Karin: That’s definitely where I would direct one’s action for sure. There are still financial connections, but so much less because super PACs generally don’t give lots of money to local-level candidates. So then you’re down to things that are within normal candidate limits, but it’s still really worth finding. Even if it’s $150 and your council person took money from the utility that they just green-lighted, that $150 feels pretty important, and it is. 

And that’s the stuff that makes for really good public comments. Show up to your local government meeting, or write a letter to the editor, and show that paper trail and that connection. Because people are tired of corporate over-influence. We can feel a shift happening in society. So, yeah, dig it up. For local stuff, there’s the followthemoney.org database. 

Sam: I think your point about utility money is something that people don’t think about a lot, but it can feel icky or corrupt. 

Karin: Utilities are kind of on the front line of slowing down our transition to less polluting forms of energy. 

Pearl: I just really appreciate your work, Karin.

Karin: Likewise, this was such a team effort, and we all learned a lot. So I really appreciate this amazing team.

Sara: Thank you. I can’t wait to see what you report next.