Since 1990 the Oil and Gas industry has pumped $221,453,356 into congressional campaigns, legalistic bribes that went almost four to one to Republicans, exceptions being a handful of Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party whom Big Oil finds it useful (and easy) to bribe. The Dirty Dozen House Members taking the most in bribes from Big Oil since 1990 are all Republicans:
• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $1,816,205• Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $1,675,914• John Boehner (R-OH)- $1,398,338• Don Young (R-AK)- $1,238,763• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $1,139,718• Lord Charles Boustany II (R-LA)- $973,780• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $972,072• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $922,862• Mike Pompeo (R-Koch)- $877,260• John Sullivan (R-OK)- $835,900• Kay Granger (R-TX)- $796,853• Cory Gardner (R-CO)- $754,100
But these 12 crooks have more in common than just the Republican Party and the immense amounts of money they have gobbled up from Big Oil. Each and every one of them has, time and again, put the interests of Big Oil ahead of the interests of their own constituents and ahead of the interests of the United States. And with the possible exception of Steve Pearce, not a single one of these crooked Republicans is being challenged by the enfeebled and corrupt DCCC this year.When Big Oil wants to get something done, even something absolutely antithetical to the best interests of the United States, these 12 Members are always the starting point. And no one carries their water more diligently than Joe "Oily Joe" Barton, who has made himself a detested comic figure by ritually dismissing and defending massive and deadly oil spills. This week though, Barton is trying to push through Big Oil's latest policy: lifting the ban on crude oil exports. Barton, safe from electoral challenge, doesn't care that his proposal puts American national security at risk-- just so long as it adds to the immense profits that Big Oil rakes in… and shares with him and his party.The U.S. has had a moratorium on crude oil exports since the 1970s. But Big OIl and their GOP shills want it lifted now. Barton told The Hill this week that "The shale revolution has drastically reshaped America’s energy landscape, unlocking a vast supply of untapped oil and gas. In order to take full advantage of this opportunity, we need to rethink outdated laws that were passed during an era of energy scarcity, which is why I am in favor of overturning the ban on crude oil exports." Barton, who can't see beyond the next big bribe check he expects from Big Oil-- last cycle alone (although he had no viable opponents) he took $164,150 from the oil and gas industry-- claims the U.S. has “more than enough resources to meet our domestic energy needs." Barton says he is working on legislation-- meaning waiting for the exact wording from Big Oil lobbyists-- that would repeal the ban on crude oil exports altogether, and will be introducing that soon.
Barton isn’t alone in his push for exports, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) too wants to see the ban completely lifted. [So far this cycle he's taken $158,139 in legalistic Big Oil bribes.]But where Barton sees real action coming next year, Flores thinks his Republican colleagues need time.Flores is confident they will come around to agreeing with him. For now, though, he said it’s “premature” for the House to vote on the ban.Flores said it was important to educate the public on the benefits from oil exports.“We just need to get through the economic benefits for the American soccer mom about how she is better off, and her family’s better off, by having crude oil exports,” he said. “That’s just going to take a little time.”Flores is being patient, allowing his fellow lawmakers time to think through the issue. He hopes that the Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on lifting the ban next year-- or even in 2016.“It’s going to take a full discussion to make sure everybody knows the economics and they know whose ox gets gored in this,” he said. “And really, if we do it right, nobody’s ox gets gored.”The likelihood of any movement this year is slim.Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy panel, said he is focused on natural gas exports, but is still studying crude exports. [His haul from Big Oil and Gas this cycle alone has been a whopping $646,950.]When asked if he supported lifting the moratorium, Upton said he “hasn’t said yet,” but acknowledged “there is a push from the Texas folks.”Next year is a different ball game, according to Barton.“I am confident that it will gain traction legislatively next year,” he said.“Pressure to remove the ban on crude oil exports is growing from both ends of the political spectrum,” he added.Many Republicans and a majority of Democrats, though, are hesitant over the impact more oil exports could have on consumers.Refiners like San Antonio-based Valero argue the system works as is.“It would do more harm than good and lead to higher prices in the U.S. for consumers,” Valero told The Hill earlier this year.Still, Barton says he is “seeing support grow every day” for a change in policy.Jordan Haverly, a spokesman for Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.), a top Republican on the Energy committee, said his boss is open to lifting the ban “and treating American crude oil like other domestically-produced commodities.” [Shimkus' haul from Big Oil and Gas has been $498,361 since 1990 and so far this cycle, a generous-- and persuasive-- $97,000.]The Commerce Department too has indicated it is having a serious discussion about crude oil exports. The White House says it is “evaluating” the policy, but has not announced any changes.But Barton is confident the ban will soon be lifted.“I predict that no matter which party controls Capitol Hill or the White House, the ban will eventually be lifted for the same reasons Congress eventually overturned other failed government efforts to regulate energy price and supply,” he said.
He has a point. Democratic lobbyists and corporate whores-- take Lawrence Summers for example-- are, predictably, on the side of Big Oil too. But not all Democrats are as fast to sell out as Summers.
[N]ot everyone's convinced. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has argued that the export ban was put in place back in the 1970s to "protect U.S. consumers from volatility and price spikes." Allowing more exports, he argued, might cause U.S. gasoline prices to rise and hurt American consumers. And some environmental groups are leery of boosting fossil-fuel production even further.…What was the point of the ban?It all dates back to the 1973 oil embargo by several Arab nations. World oil prices were soaring, and Congress was trying to limit U.S. exposure to the global crude markets. So lawmakers enacted a bunch of conservation measures (including fuel standards for cars and trucks) as well as restrictions on exports. The idea was to keep as much crude oil at home, limit the nation's reliance on imports, and sidestep the volatile global markets.…There are three common objections [to lifting the ban]:Gas prices: First, opponents like Menendez have worried that lifting the export ban could raise the price of U.S. gasoline. Many consumers in the Midwest benefit from the current refinery bottleneck, because it artificially depresses the price of crude. If oil producers can sell abroad, prices would presumably rise.Environment: Second, there's the environmental argument. A recent report (pdf) from Oil Change International agreed that lifting the export ban would probably allow U.S. companies to drill for more oil. But, the report added, this would be a bad thing-- because it would increase overall greenhouse-gas emissions. "In order to play its part in meeting global climate goals, it is imperative that the United States maintains the ban on crude oil exports and does everything it can to decrease, rather than increase, the global pool of fossil fuel reserves that are exploited," the report said.Lobbying: Third, many U.S. refineries like the existing state of affairs just fine-- since they can buy oil at artificially low prices and then export the gasoline and diesel abroad at a markup. "We wouldn't be doing as well financially if it weren't for that [the ban]," one refinery lobbyist told National Journal's Amy Harder. And Valero Energy, a major U.S. refiner, has spoken out against allowing exports.
No one seems to be talking about dwindling oil supplies and asking what happens when domestic oil actually runs out? Thinking about the future isn't something people do-- not when millions of dollars are riding on not thinking about the future. Meanwhile… remember the "clean coal" scam? How about "clean oil" or "green oil?" Do I smell a huckster here?