American Politicians Who Vote Against Climate Get More Corporate Cash

By Bre Bradham, Andre Tartar and Hayley Warren

October 23, 2020, 4:00 AM EDT

As Americans vote in an election that will redefine national climate priorities, the biggest U.S. companies—even those with ambitious green agendas—are throwing their support behind lawmakers who routinely stall climate legislation.

Bloomberg Green examined political donations by businesses in the S&P 100 and large U.S.-based corporate contributors to climate change identified by the Climate Action 100+, which seeks to help them lower their emissions. For every dollar these corporations gave to one of the most climate-friendly members of Congress during this election cycle, they gave $1.84—nearly twice as much—to an ardent obstructionist of proactive climate policy.

This pattern of giving more to candidates who do less for the climate comes as polls show voters are more concerned about climate change than ever before, and it stands in contrast to the bold claims many of these companies make about themselves and their products.

Follow the Money

Most companies gave more money to candidates with poor records on climate issues than to candidates with good ones

Climate Action 100+ focus companies
Climate obstructionists
In the middle
Climate supporters

In total, these companies’ affiliated political action committees have given about $68 million to incumbent House and Senate members’ campaign committees and leadership PACs since the 2018 midterms. About one-third of that went to candidates with a lifetime score of 5% or lower from the League of Conservation Voters, which tracks law-makers’ voting records on key climate-related bills. Nearly half went to candidates with scores of 10% or lower, while less than a third went to a similar number of incumbents with LCV scores of 90% or higher.

A score of 10% or lower means that a member has voted in favor of climate-related causes at most 10% of the time over the course of their congressional career—a category that includes 210 people, or 40% of the members of Congress. Of these, 206 are active candidates and have received campaign contributions from the corporate PACs analyzed. A slightly smaller number, 198 members, had scores above 90%.

LCV’s ratings are as polarized as the two major parties: The vast majority of lawmakers in Washington scored either below 10% or above 90%, with Republicans almost exclusively scoring low and Democrats almost exclusively scoring high.

All but 19 companies’ political arms have directed a disproportionate share of their campaign donations toward incumbents with dismal climate records. Alphabet Inc. was the biggest spender in the tech sector; in September its Google division pledged to power itself with 100% carbon-free energy by 2030, yet it gave about 9% more of its political contributions to candidates with LCV scores below 10% than it did to those with scores 90% or higher. Microsoft Corp. pledged in January to be carbon negative by 2030, but it gave about 14% more of its campaign donations to those with low LCV scores. NextEra Energy Inc., the world’s biggest provider of solar and wind energy, spent almost 17% more of its PAC funds on obstructionists.

“Given the breadth of our policy agenda, it’s unlikely we’ll agree with any official on every issue, but we’ve learned that engagement—even when individuals hold different positions—is an essential part of achieving progress,” a Microsoft spokesperson said. Representatives for Alphabet and NextEra didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Donations Swing Towards Obstructionists

For most companies, a greater proportion of their net contributions went to lawmakers with low climate voting scores

Climate Action 100+ focus companies
Hover to see a company’s net contributions and climate-related leanings

While all companies gave to obstructionist candidates, how much varied across sectors. Oil and gas companies were, unsurprisingly, the most generous to the lowest scoring incumbents. Exxon Mobil, the biggest giver in that group, gave 68% of its nearly $1 million in spending on candidates and their associated leadership PACs to climate obstructionists. The tech sector had the most climate-conscious spending, though even that tilted toward those with low LCV scores. Amazon.com Inc., classified as a consumer retail business, spent pretty equally across the board, with a slight tilt toward climate-friendly lawmakers.

“Amazon contributes to policymakers who oversee issues that affect our business, customers, and employees. That does not mean we agree with any policymaker 100% of the time,” a spokesperson said. Casey Norton, a spokesman for Exxon, disputed the methodology of the analysis and said that the company has supported dozens of incumbents with high LCV scores. “We support sound climate policies that promote global participation, let market prices drive the selection of solutions, ensure a uniform and predictable cost of greenhouse gas emissions across the economy, minimize complexity and administrative costs, maximize transparency and provide flexibility to react to developments in technology, climate science, and policy,” Norton said.

Note: Sector groupings based on Bloomberg Industry Classification Standard definitions, with top 3 companies by net contributions for each shown.

There are lots of reasons unrelated to climate policy for a company to donate to a particular candidate. It might agree with one of their other positions, say, on spending priorities or judicial issues; or it might want to curry favor generally with representatives. “Companies are going to give to candidates to buy access, companies are giving to candidates to build relationships,” says Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability. “Companies also are using their contributions to create a policy climate. They may be looking for lower taxes or less regulation.”

Politicians may also reject campaign contributions for a variety of reasons, including if they’re from a source whose ideological positions the politician doesn’t agree with.

Top 20 Corporate Donation-Getters

The most prolific fundraisers from the S&P 100 and among the Climate Action 100+ focus companies were more likely to have records of inaction on climate change

Climate obstructionists
Climate supporters

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, has raised more than $28 million through both his official campaign committee and affiliated leadership committees this election cycle, making him one of Congress’s most prolific fundraisers. This is in part thanks to his position as the top-ranking Republican in the House, which brings with it a higher profile and greater responsibility to funnel donations to other members of the party caucus. So far this election cycle, he’s raised more than 20 times as much as his Democratic challenger.

With a lifetime score of 3% from the LCV, McCarthy has voted just 10 times in favor of the environment out of 362 climate-related votes since he entered the House in 2007. And yet he enjoys broad-based corporate support, even from sectors that are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as health care and financials. Of McCarthy’s total haul, more than $900,000 came from the companies Bloomberg Green analyzed. McCarthy’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

This data gives just a partial snapshot of corporate campaign spending. Outside of company PACs, leadership PACs and campaign committees are myriad other industry PACs and party-related PACs that may be affiliated only loosely with companies and candidates. And beyond that is the constellation of super PACs, independent groups whose spending floodgates opened after the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. These allow individuals and companies to make huge-value donations that are nearly untraceable. This campaign cycle alone, super PACs have raised $2,158,622,780, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, compared with $1,567,304,432 raised for 2018.

The ability to conceal campaign spending might become increasingly important to businesses as they face ever-growing pressure to get in line on climate issues. But even that’s become more difficult. Consumers—and, increasingly, investors—are demanding more transparency. “Companies recognize that there’s a day of reckoning now on their contributions, that they can’t just rely on rhetoric,” Freed says. “They have to talk the talk and walk the walk.”

Updates second paragraph and chart labels to clarify the relationship between Climate Action 100+ and the companies in Bloomberg Green’s analysis.

Editor: Jillian Goodman

With assistance by Bill Allison

Methodology This analysis includes all members of the S&P 100 with at least one affiliated PAC, plus U.S.-headquartered companies on the Climate Action 100+’s list of focus companies, which includes the world’s largest corporate emitters, with at least one affiliated PAC, for a total of 106 companies. Spending is represented as a net contribution, accounting for contributions from companies to candidates and refunds from candidates back to companies. It doesn’t include contributions to nonincumbents, but does include donations to members not currently up for reelection. The scores are calculated based on how members of Congress vote on key climate-related bills each year. This analysis considers incumbents’ lifetime scores, not their latest annual score. Spending data comes from FEC disclosures. Transactions counted if they were made to a candidate’s principal campaign committee, as identified by the FEC, or an affiliated leadership PAC, as identified by the FEC or a Bloomberg document review, in the period between the 2018 midterm election and the Oct. 20 filing deadline.

American Politicians Who Vote Against Climate Get More Corporate Cash

Follow the Money

Donations Swing Towards Obstructionists

Polarization Across Sectors

Top 20 Corporate Donation-Getters

Kevin McCarthy’s Network