One of the less well-covered and more exciting developments of the otherwise depressing and disheartening 2016 election cycle was a natural evolution of the growing political power of the climate movement: the first chinks in the armor of the legitimacy of fossil fuel industry campaign contributions.
The political spending power of the fossil fuel industry is well-documented, and the success of their spending is obvious: in the 35+ years congress since has been formally notified about climate change - arguably the greatest geopolitical, health, economic, and equity challenge facing 21st century America, congress has not passed a single bill to even pretend to address it (much less actually do so). Indeed, President-Elect Trump just nominated a fossil fuel industry mouthpiece to lead (or perhaps dismantle) the Environmental Protection Agency.
To counter this power, the climate movement embraced a new tactic--divestment--several years ago in order to delegitimize the fossil fuel industry and make clear that respectable people and institutions would not willingly associate themselves with such a deadly and rogue industry. Since then, trillions of dollars of assets from churches, synagogues, universities, and foundations to towns and cities, retirement funds, and personal investments, have formally declared themselves divested from fossil fuel companies as thousands upon thousands of students, clergy, retirees, socially responsible investment professionals, and others have taken up the call.
As usual, politics is a lagging indicator of social change. Yet in 2016, we saw the first real movement on politicians and political entities choose to divest and disassociate their campaign funds from fossil fuel companies.
Fossil fuel money entered the national political scene most prominently in April during the Democratic primary, when the Sanders campaign accused the Clinton campaign of taking money from fossil fuel industry employees, (which indeed, both Clinton and Sanders had--along with all major Republican candidates--though at different levels). While this proved to be a potent issue during the national Democratic primary, the most exciting progress this electoral season was made in two states: Massachusetts and California.
Massachusetts Candidate’s Pledge
In August, 350 Mass Action launched its Clean Money for Climate Pledge, asking candidates for the state legislature to refuse campaign contributions from ten of the worst dirty energy businesses, including both local utilities Eversource and National Grid as well as national oil companies like ExxonMobil and BP. A total of 74 candidates for the Massachusetts state legislature signed a pledge; 39 of whom were elected or re-elected to the Massachusetts State House. All told, come January, almost 1/5th of the Massachusetts State House will have declared themselves free of fossil fuel influence in their campaign funding.
Who Signed On
Candidates from across the political spectrum in Massachusetts signed the pledge, appreciating that it should be unambiguous to voters that their votes should be made in the best interest of the people, not in the interests of companies who might have donated to their campaigns.
While signatories included progressive climate champions in Massachusetts such as Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Senator Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), Representative Marjorie Decker (D-Cambridge), and Representative Frank Smizik (D-Brookline), signatories also included some less climate-focused democrats and four Republicans, including Senator Richard Ross (R-Wrentham) and Representative Leonard Mirra (R-West Newbury) as well as five candidates from the center-right United Independent Party, the Green-Rainbow Party, and unaffiliated independents.
California’s Democratic Party Stands Up to Fossil Fuels
Meanwhile, on the others side of the country, California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton announced in mid-November that the Democratic Party of California would no longer accept political contributions from oil companies in response to urging by R.L. Miller of Climate Hawks Vote. This is particularly meaningful given that the party has taken more than three million dollars in funding from fossil fuel companies over the years.
The idea is pretty simple: fossil fuel companies and the utilities that sell their power have been warping state and federal policy in support of fossil fuels for decades. If we want energy policies that are truly in the best interests of constituents, politicians should make clear that their votes and positions are not being shaped--consciously or subconsciously--by dirty energy money. With national politics playing out the way it is today, this has only become more important. As more and more universities, faith institutions, foundations, towns, cities, and even nations divest from fossil fuels, more and more politicians and party leaders will feel compelled or emboldened to join them.