The Earth is warming. There should be no debate surrounding this premise. The International Panel on Climate change notes that “scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal” (Shaftel). The ever-growing body of evidence bolstering this claim continues to uncover new, critical ways in which the warming of our planet affects many aspects of the Earth, from shrinking icecaps to extreme weather events and ocean acidification to decreased snow cover (Shaftel). The evidence is clear, so why is public opinion so divided on this issue? Yes, misinformation and simple ignorance is partly to blame, but the politicians, specifically those receiving dark money donations from those with a vested interest in opposing environmental regulation, who legislate, campaign, and influence the public are the true culprits. It was not always this way. In fact, most politicians now opposing the idea of human-caused climate change supported funding for renewable energy and climate change legislation in the past. In 2011, New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie said politicians should refer to the experts when “…over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this, stating that climate change is occurring” (Baxter). In 2007, Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House also noted that the United Sates should “move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading in the atmosphere” (Quaid). In the same year, Republican Senator John McCain, when asked why it had taken so long for renewable energy bills to be introduced he responded that “[it’s] the special interests… [they’re] the ones who have blocked progress in the Congress…” (Guinnessy). In 2015, Governor Christie reversed his stance, saying that he “doesn’t buy it” when a reporter said the earth has had one temperature-record-breaking year after another (Mellen). In 2011 Gingrich flipped on the issue, claiming that the age of the dinosaurs was “…dramatically warmer than this is right now, and… life was fine” (Paige). In 2015, John McCain deflected the question he was asked about climate change, saying ISIS is executing people and the “President of the United States is saying the biggest enemy we have is climate change” (McCarthy). The politicians were steadfast in their claims that the Earth is warming. That is until they began receiving donations from corporations that make their money on fossil fuels and lack of environmental protections. Koch Industries, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Occidental Petroleum, and countless others have donated tens of millions of dollars to Republican campaigns and conservative lobbying groups in an effort to push their agenda and increase profits, at the expense of the American people and the planet as a whole. According to The Center for Responsive Politics, this practice is much larger in scale and scope than even just a few years ago, with oil companies doubling their lobbying and campaign contributions from $35 million in 2010 to nearly $80 million in 2012, and the amount increases with each subsequent election year (Oil and Gas). The biggest factor in politicians’ opinion on climate change is not science, it is money. This, in turn, prevents environmental legislation from being passed by legislators and turns public opinion away from fact and toward the blind greed of politicians and their campaigns. By oil and gas corporations donating massive amounts of money to political campaigns, super PACs, and certain nonprofit organizations, they gain influence over government officials and hamstring environmental efforts, allowing them to turn scientific ignorance into massive profits.
Dark money is a relatively new concept in American politics. According to the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) data, dark money was a fraction of political money until the 2008 election, when political campaign spending from organizations not required to disclose their donors jumped from $5.17 million in 2006 to $102.43 million in 2008, an increase of almost 20 times (Dark Money). The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) defines dark money as any money spent in a political election in which the donor is not disclosed with the intention of influencing voters. This money is often donated to 501(c) groups: nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations that may engage in some political activity (depending upon the specific subgroup). For purposes of this discussion, a distinction needs to be drawn between political activities and lobbying. The IRS defines political activities as participating in or intervening in any political campaign for elected public office, while lobbying is defined as attempting to influence specific legislation (Political Activities). Because these 501(c) organizations are not technically political entities, they are not required to disclose their donors and are not bound by the FEC’s laws on contribution limits.
The ability of nonprofit organizations to engage in political activities depends on their status and under which section they fall in the Internal Revenue Code. 501(c)(3) groups are religious, educational, charitable, or scientific organizations that may not partake in any political action and include the NAACP and the Center for American Progress. 501(c)(4)s are social welfare organizations that may contribute to political activities, but political activities may not be a majority of their overall expenditures and include the NRA and Planned Parenthood. Labor, agricultural, and horticultural organizations are filed under 501(c)(5), which have the same political participation limitations as 501(c)(4)s and include the Service Employees International Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The final major nonprofit category is the 501(c)(6), business leagues and chambers of commerce with the same limits as 501(c)(4)s and include the US Chamber of Commerce and The American Medical Association. In short, 501(c)(3) organizations may not participate in political activities, while organizations exempt under other subsections of 501(c) are permitted to engage in limited political activities (Political Activities).
Political spending by nonprofits in the United States has risen dramatically since 2006, with social welfare (501(c)(4)) organizations increasing their political spending from just over $1 million in 2006 to $86 million in 2008 (Dark Money). These numbers fall right in line with the previous data on undisclosed campaign spending. Nonprofits make the ideal front for corporations or individuals that wish to hide their identity from the public while also buying politicians to work in the corporation’s or individual’s favor.
The other popular way to buy elections is through groups called super PACs. Super PACs differ from nonprofits in that they must identify and report all donors to the FEC, but can still receive and spend nearly unlimited amounts of money donated from organizations or individuals with vested interests (Ballotpedia). Unlike ordinary political action committees (PACs), they have no limits on spending or fundraising, save that they may not “‘be made in concert or cooperate with, or at the the request or suggestion of, a candidate, the candidate’s campaign or a political party’”, according to the FEC (Ballotpedia). They present a more direct and less limited option for those whose privacy is of little consequence or concern, such as the Koch brothers.
With such little regulation governing nonprofits and super PACs, individuals are effectively free to buy candidates for office by indirectly aiding their election. After these politicians are elected, they act on the wishes of those who donated most to their campaigns, and those who donated the most money often become the oligarchical constituency of the elected official. It should come as no surprise that these corrupt politicians change their stances to those of their supporters, just as Governor Christie, Speaker Gingrich, and Senator McCain did.
As the world enters a post-truth era, where facts and data mean less than emotional appeals from those in power, the American populace bases its opinions more on those of politicians than those of scientists and experts. A Gallup poll from March of 2016 found that a substantial majority, 64%, of Americans are worried either a great deal or a fair amount about global warming (Saad). However, this is only the fifth highest percentage since 1999, with peaks generally occurring during election years and then declining until the next election. Sixty-six percent of Americans were worried about climate change in 2008, falling to 51% before 2012, increasing slightly, then remaining relatively constant until 2016 (Saad). Since 1990, overall opinion on the topic increased only a single percentage point, despite the deluge of data, studies, and climate scientists confirming that climate change is occurring. This is largely due to dark money influences in elections, especially from oil and gas companies attempting to stave off regulations and losses in revenue by corrupting politicians. Moreover, only 41% of Americans believe global warming poses a serious threat to their way of life, barely changing since 2008, when 40% of Americans agreed (Saad). Republicans and Democrats display a clear divide in these polls, with 40% of Republicans worried about climate change compared to 84% of Democrats, and 20% of Republicans agreeing climate change will pose a serious threat compared to 58% of Democrats (Saad).
There is no mystery surrounding oil and gas dark money being disproportionally donated to Republicans. These organizations exploit existing negative conservative biases toward human-caused climate change by focusing their resources on politicians whose constituencies already doubt the very existence of it.
Confirmation bias explains how these politicians can fool the American people into believing them over scientists and experts. Confirmation bias is the concept of more easily accepting new information that confirms one’s already-held beliefs while rejecting new information that opposes them, even if the opposing information comes from someone of authority, such a climate scientist.
Snuffing out the anti-science gaslights set by politicians will not be an easy task. With hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into Republican climate-deniers’ campaigns each election cycle, the deck is stacked against science and in favor of oil and gas companies. Achieving true science-based decision making in Congress comes down to stemming the flow of dark money into political campaigns. With clean, transparent political campaigns comes a new wave of politicians, a legislature not controlled by multi-billion dollar companies, but instead controlled by the constituencies of the elected officials and guided by factual evidence. Only at that time will the American people be persuaded by their trustworthy politicians to accept the data they are presented and reject false ideas perpetuated by special interest groups. This begins with the overturning of the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, which “prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation”, meaning nonprofit organizations cannot be prohibited from spending money on political elections (Wikipedia). This granted corporations the same First Amendment right of free speech as American citizens, equating dark money to speech.
Dark money has cast a shadow on American elections, corrupting politicians and the minds of the American people. It has turned the Republic into an oligarchy, where elected officials answer to an elite group of billionaires and corporations instead of their constituencies. This, in turn, causes policy decisions to be made by special interest groups instead of evidence, leading to the dissemination of misinformation by those in power and preventing legislation that would be beneficial to both the public and the planet. While the current situation is nearing critical, time still exists to rectify it. American citizens must demand that representatives vote according to their constituents’ values, not those of special interests or major corporations purchasing legislation.