Americans care a great deal about the health of our environment. According to a March 2002 Gallup poll, 82 percent of Americans worry a "great deal" or a "fair amount" about pollution of drinking water; 85 percent about pollution of rivers, lakes and reservoirs; and 82 percent about contamination of soil and water by toxic waste.1

There is reason to worry. Although the United States is widely considered a global leader in economy, trade, education, arts, and innovation, we lag miserably when it comes to the environment. The U.S. ranks first in the world for achievement in science and technology out of a field of 142 nations, but we trail the rest of the world in every other major indicator of environmental sustainability, according to the 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index published by Columbia and Yale Universities.2 The U.S. ranks 18th in water quality, 52nd in air quality, and 49th in environmental health. As for effort toward improving the environmental situation, the U.S. record gets even worse. The U.S. ranks 122nd in reducing air pollution, 133rd in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and 136th in reducing waste and consumption pressures. Overall, the U.S. ranks 45th in environmental sustainability.

Something doesn't compute. In a democracy, public policy is supposed to correlate more closely with public opinion. Look at who is financing our representatives' campaigns for office, however, and the political equation suddenly becomes easy to solve: campaign cash from polluting industries opposed to strong environmental laws trumps the efforts of environmental groups lobbying for greater environmental protection. Oil and gas, electric utilities, mining, chemical, and the auto manufacturing industries have poured $292 million into federal campaigns and party coffers since 1989, 71 percent of that to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). That's 30 times as much as the $9.8 million contributed by environmental groups over the same time period. On issue after issue, when it comes to the environment, we have a dollar democracy.

Global Warming
Heat waves, droughts, floods, the spread of infectious diseases, an increase in severe, life-threatening storms—these are the very real threats that global warming poses to the world. A majority of the world's scientists agree that global warming is a serious problem, and that pollution is the main cause. Production of excess carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that contribute to global warming could be controlled. But the oil and gas, electric utilities, and auto manufacturers that are among the industries opposed to such controls have been the source of more than $225 million for political campaigns since 1989, according to CRP. President George W. Bush alone received $2.5 million from these industries for his 2000 presidential campaign, plus another $2.9 million for his inaugural festivities. The results of their largesse are evident in the actions of Congress and the administration.

On Valentine's Day 2002, President Bush announced his "Clear Skies" voluntary initiative to reduce global warming. Environmental groups quickly criticized its weaknesses. The Bush policy, which is supposed to be a substitute for U.S. participation in the international Kyoto Protocol, would allow emissions to grow by 36 percent more than allowed under that treaty by 2010 and 50 percent more by 2020, according to the Sierra Club.3

Meanwhile, Congress rejects other measures that could help curb global warming, such as increasing fuel economy standards. Better fuel economy is the "biggest single step" America can take to curb global warming, according to the Sierra Club. However, in March 2002, the Senate voted 62 to 38 to turn aside a proposal sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard to 36 miles per gallon for cars and trucks by 2015. On average, the 62 Senators who voted with the industry to avoid any immediate toughening of CAFE rules received $18,800 from auto companies. The 38 Senators who wanted stronger standards received just $5,590.4 Over all, since 1989, auto manufacturing companies have given $10.7 million to federal candidates and parties. Of that, $1.7 million was soft money and the rest was hard money contributions from PACs and individuals.

Toxic Waste: The Superfund
At a very young age, most schoolchildren are taught a basic civic responsibility: if you make a mess, you clean it up. But the nation's top polluting companies apparently never learned this lesson. With the help of large amounts of campaign cash, they're convincing politicians to let them off the hook for cleaning up toxic waste sites across the nation.

In 1980, Congress established the "Superfund" to clean up the worst toxic waste sites—relics of a time when less was known about the harm that chemicals could do to human health and the environment. From its inception, the program has operated under the principle that the "polluter pays." The companies responsible for the pollution—not the taxpayers—are supposed to shoulder the cost of cleanups. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines which companies are responsible for pollution at a specific site. These companies, in turn, can seek funds from other companies or groups that also contributed to the contamination to a lesser degree. To cover costs of cleaning up sites where polluters cannot be determined or are no longer in existence, Congress also set up the Superfund Trust Fund, funded by taxes on the oil and chemical industries.

Since 1995, however, Congress has refused to reauthorize the taxes on the oil and chemical industries—the source of $190 million in campaign contributions since 1989, three-quarters of that to the GOP. The Superfund Trust Fund budget has dwindled significantly, from a high of $3.8 billion in 1995 to a mere $28 million projected for 2003. In that time, polluting corporations have saved paying $10 billion in Superfund-related taxes. Although the previous three presidents supported reauthorization of industry taxes, President Bush opposes it, instead favoring an increase in the amount paid by taxpayers.5

In June 2002 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the Bush administration would cut funds dramatically for cleanups. These cuts are expected to halt the clean up of 33 of the most heavily polluted sites in the Superfund program.6 According to the US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), the program will be under-funded by at least $1 billion to $1.4 billion by 2003, and the pace of clean up has already been reduced by 50%, dropping from 87 sites in 2000 to a projected 40 by the end of 2002.7 The Bush-Cheney campaign collected $2.5 million from the oil and gas and chemical industries for the 2000 presidential campaign.

Nuclear Waste
Some 70,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste could soon be moving on highways across 44 states and the District of Columbia.8 In fact, according to the Environmental Working Group, one in seven Americans live within one mile of the proposed routes for shipping the highly radioactive waste, the product of the nation's nuclear labs and power plants, to a proposed permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.9

The hazardous radioactive waste will be moving through American cities and neighborhoods thanks to a heavy lobbying campaign by the nuclear industry, the source of $8.7 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates and party committees in the 2002 election cycle alone, according to CRP.10 Top Senate recipients include Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-NH), who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has gotten more than $90,000, and who cast a "yes" vote on the bill. Overall, Senate Democrats who voted for the nuclear waste bill received, on average, twice as much money from nuclear interests as those Democrats who voted no.11 Top House recipients are Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who has received more than $83,000 and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who has gotten more than $63,000. Both have leadership positions on House environmental committees, both voted in favor of moving nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, and, indeed, Barton was the bill's lead sponsor in the House.

Under the Yucca Mountain plan, nuclear waste will start to move in 2010, and early estimates indicate that it will take 53,000 truck shipments or 10,700 rail cask shipments from commercial and Department of Energy sites all over the nation to get the waste to Nevada over the course of 24 years.12 Adding to the danger inherent in this process, they will be transported in containers vulnerable to terrorist attacks and accidental ruptures. Moreover, this mass relocation does little to solve the existing problem. The proposed facility at Yucca Mountain will be able to hold 77,000 tons of waste. However, the nuclear energy industry's waste production will exceed the holding capacity of the Yucca facility even before it opens.13

When Contributors Write Energy Rules
In the past the energy industry was content with giving money to political campaigns in exchange for access to government policymakers. Today, with the help of big campaign contributions these corporations have put themselves in the enviable position of actually being able to write government policy themselves.

Even before he was sworn in as president, George W. Bush formed a transition team dominated by industry interests. A month after President Bush's inauguration, Vice President Dick Cheney formed an Energy Task Force.14 The mission of this office was to evaluate the energy needs of the country and decide how best to facilitate them. Instead of conducting balanced research, the task force spent its time accommodating the president's contributors. From January through September 2001, task force officials had 714 direct contacts with industry representatives, and only 29 with non-industry representatives.15 The companies involved were the source of $85.7 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties from 1999 through 2002, nearly two thirds of that to Republicans, according to CRP.16

All of this was done in secret. For several months, the White House refused to release the names, times or dates of any parties they met with, despite repeated requests from the General Accounting Office and from public interest groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Finally, in February 2002, a federal district court ruling ordered the Department of Energy to release documents related to the taskforce to NRDC.17 They reveal that while forming the National Energy Policy, the Bush administration collaborated heavily with utility, oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries, incorporating their recommendations often verbatim into its energy plan.18

Meanwhile, Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) carried the water in Congress, sponsoring energy legislation similar to the Bush energy plan. Tauzin is among the top five recipients in the House of Representatives for contributions from the chemical, electric utility, and oil and gas companies during the 2002 election cycle. In August 2001, the House approved the legislation, which contained $33 billion in tax breaks for energy companies.19 The House bill also included a provision allowing drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), home to more than 241 different species of birds, fish, and land and marine mammals, three of which are endangered.20 Although the Senate version of the bill, approved in April 2002, does not include the provision to open ANWR to drilling, there are other provisions considered harmful to the environment. Among these are sections weakening safe drinking water requirements, nuclear safety standards, and efficiency standards for air conditioners, according to New Energy Future, a project of the state PIRGs.21 As of August 2002, the House and Senate were negotiating a final version of the energy bill.

Clean Money + Clean Elections = Clean Environment
The current campaign finance system is fundamentally flawed. Corporations and wealthy individuals, many of whom benefit from the weakening of laws created to protect the environment, are able to give the most money to candidates. These candidates come to depend on special interest contributions and when they start writing laws, they look out for their contributors' interests over the interests of the public and their constituents. As long as we maintain our system of privately financed campaigns, public policy will continue to be unduly influenced by special interest contributions.

Comprehensive campaign finance reform should aim to create a system that reduces special interest influence and creates a level playing field so qualified candidates without access to wealth can run viable campaigns. Public Campaign believes that a system of "Clean Money/Clean Elections" can alter the political landscape. Under a Clean Money system, candidates who agree to forego private contributions—including money from their own pockets—and accept strict spending limits receive an equal and limited amount to run their campaigns from a publicly-financed clean elections fund. In return, voters will get an end to special interest influence and a level playing field so that environmental policy will no longer be polluted by campaign contributions.

Clean Money is already law in four states: Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Grassroots organizations in nearly forty states are working on behalf of Clean Money Campaign Reform. If you care about protecting our natural surroundings to safeguard people and wildlife, then you should support Clean Money Campaign Reform.

Updated September 2002

1The Gallup Poll. March 4-7, 2002. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.m; http://www.pollingreport.com./enviro.htm.
22002 Environmental Sustainability Index Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information Network http://www.ciesin.org/indicators/ESI/ESI2002_21MAR02a.pdf
3http://lists.sierraclub.org/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind0202&L=ce-scnews-releases&D=1&T=0&H=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=806

4Fueling Fears," Public Campaign, Ouch #95, March 19, 2002, http://www.publicampaign.org/ouch03_19_02.htm.
5Fact Sheet, USPIRG, http://www.pirg.org/enviro/superfund/superfund.asp?id2=6139&id3=superfun...
6Katharine Q. Seelye, "Bush Slashing Aid for EPA Cleanup at 33 Toxic Sites," The New York Times, July 1, 2002, p. A6; General's Report, United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 24th 2002, http://www.house.gov/commerce Superfund Inspector democrats/press/062402epaltr.pdf
7Fact Sheet, USPIRG, http://www.pirg.org/enviro/superfund/superfund.asp?id2=6101&id3=superfun...
8Press release, Public Citizen, April 18, 2002, http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1089

9Press release, Environmental Working Group, June 11, 2002, http://www.mapscience.org/release_20020611.php.
10http://www.opensecrets.org/news/nuclear/index.asp
11http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?issueid=YU1&billdisplay=1
12Environmental Impact Statement, Department of Energy, EIS-2050, Reader's Guide and Summary, p. S-68, http://yucca-web2.ymp.gov/documents/feis_a/index.htm
13Press release, Public Citizen, http://www.publiccitizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_waste/hi...
14http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/aplayers.asp

15NRDC Press Release, http://www.nrdc.org//media/pressreleases/020521.asp
16http://www.opensecrets.org/news/energy_task_force/nrdcmasterlist_9902partysplit.asp
17NRDC press release, http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/020227a.asp
18NRDC press release, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/taskforce/tfinx.asp
19http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?issueid=EN1&billdisplay=2.
20Lowell, Beth, Policy Analyst, Endangered Species Coalition

21Press release, New Energy Future, http://www.newenergyfuture.com/newenergy.asp?id2=6809