Power to the People… er… Power Companies

Power to the People… er… Power Companies

In a world where 1% of the population owners well over half the assets and wealth, the average American voters are at a distinct disadvantage. They simply do not have the deep pockets that special interest have – with candidates showing stretch marks on their arms for reaching into those pockets – nor do they have laws that contain those campaign-influencing expenditures short of bribes. After the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs FEC, coupled with no particular requirements for Super-PACs (“independent” political action committees not controlled directly by the candidates) to state exactly whose money they are wielding. As a result, business structures and such committees are accorded individual First Amendment rights, effectively removing any cap to such political expenditures.

With vast majority of such Super-PAC funding embracing conservative causes and fighting restrictions (financial and environmental) imposed on those special interests’ businesses, you can bet that benefits to the average American are not remotely on their must-have issue list. Remember that under US corporate law, corporate officers and directors have only one fiduciary duty: to the shareholders (generally meaning fostering growth and dividends only). So when they funnel their unattributed money into Super-PACS to achieve their corporate goals, we commonly refer to such issue or candidate campaign funding as “dark money.” The fund may have a catchy name, but you are not informed as to who the donors are.

It got to the point where unfunded candidates, early in their races, will purposely embrace the causes of their Super-PACs in the often-rewarded practice of garnering some of that dark money. We are fairly unique among nations in allowing such massive dark funding to be used in political campaigns; elsewhere it is usually viewed for what it is: corruption. So a recent case in point, the influence-seeking dollars from both public and private electrical power utilities to delay or even deny the costly implementation of green alternatives in favor of the incumbent powerhouses of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Writing an expose for Floodlight, reproduced in the June 15th Guardian UK, Mario Ariza shines some electric light on the industry’s use of Super-PAC dark money: “US power companies have made political donations of at least $215m to dark money groups in recent years, according to a new analysis of 25 for-profit utilities, amid growing concerns around how they wield influence.

“Such secretive donations to barely regulated non-profit groups have helped utilities increase electricity prices, hinder solar schemes and helped elect sympathetic legislators in recent years.

“While dark money giving to tax-exempt groups is legal, a number of utilities have faced criticism for it. In Arizona and Alabama, power companies faced blowback after they used dark money to aid the election of friendly regulators. In Michigan, regulators barred another company from using dark money entirely after it spent $43m on politics in just three years… Sometimes, power company dark money giving hides illegality. In 2021 in Ohio, FirstEnergy Corporation pleaded guilty to using dark money groups to bribe politicians in exchange for bailouts.

“In another instance of ethically questionable actions, Florida Power and Light (FPL) used dark money to interfere with ballot initiatives, and the elections of five politicians who in part aimed to tackle the high prices of electric bills and environmental and climate goals… ‘We are captive payers. To be funding lobbying against clean energy and climate that customers actually want goes against the public interest,’ said Jean Su, a senior attorney at environmental group Center for Biological Diversity.

“Customers can also lose out… This was a scenario in Arizona when, in 2014, power company Arizona Public Service gave $10.7m to dark money groups that donated to key regulatory commission races. The two Republican commissioners backed by the groups won. In 2017, they went on to support the power company’s request for a $95m-a-year increase in electric bills, which ultimately was passed down to customers.

“It took a subpoena from a regulator to finally prove in 2019 that the company had been behind the political spending… That’s because the groups which receive the donations can be mysterious. They often bear generic or patriotic-sounding names, rarely disclose their funding sources and transfer large amounts of money between themselves. Regulations mandating public disclosure of dark money utility political spending are rare at the state level. Federal regulators stopped requiring public, line-by-line accounting of power company political spending in 2002.

“Floodlight and the Guardian used public records and self-disclosure data from the Center for Political Accountability (CPA), a non-profit that tracks corporate dark-money, to piece together how much for-profit power companies might be spending. Dark money is difficult to unearth, and the total will be an undercount… There are 44 regulated for-profit utilities across the US, according to the Edison Electric Institute, their trade association. Twenty-three of them self-disclosed giving nearly $100m to so-called dark money 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups between 2014 and 2020.

“Some offered more detail than others. Many companies do not report the total amounts they donate, but rather just the amount that cannot be deducted from taxes. Others don’t disclose the dark money giving of their subsidiaries. FirstEnergy in Ohio did not self-disclose at all… Overall, the total amount of dark money uncovered by regulators and the Department of Justice – about $115m – was greater than the total amount the companies disclosed.

“The Edison Electric Institute defended the spending. ‘Electric companies are subject to the same strict laws and regulations that apply to all businesses,’ said Brian Reil, spokesman for the industry group. State regulators add even more scrutiny, he said… Critics argue the dark money spending is kept private, in part to ensure the disruptive transition to green energy happens on the companies’ terms or not at all, and to hinder oversight.” Don’t you love that when you pay your utility bills, you are probably paying for the relevant utility to work against your own best interests?

I’m Peter Dekom, and you do not have to wonder why when it a rich special interest vs an ordinary taxpayer, the taxpayer winds up effectively supporting that special interest anyway.