The “No Fossil Fuel Pledge” seems simple, stating that the signer pledges, “not to take contributions over $200 from oil, gas, and coal industry executives, lobbyists [emphasis added], and PACS and instead to prioritize the health of our families, climate, and democracy over fossil fuel industry profits.” It is an important step in increasing funding transparency for those in political office, and those running for office, and I’m grateful to all those who have signed it. Current signers within the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation include both Senators Markey and Warren, and Representatives Joe Kennedy (for whom I volunteer), Jim McGovern, Seth Moulton, and Ayanna Pressley. Recently, Benjamin Kail of Mass Live published the news (which you can see here) that according to FEC records, Senator Markey (long defined by his signature advocacy for climate action) had broken this pledge and had accepted several thousand dollars in donations from lobbyists who represent fossil fuel interests. At that time, Senator Markey’s team denied that they had broken the pledge and refused to return the money. Then late last week, it got better and worse. It got better because Senator Markey agreed to return the donations, which I very much appreciate. I respect Senator Markey a great deal, and his decision to return the donations supports my continued respect for him. But it got worse because it turns out that Senator Markey’s campaign had accepted donations violating the Fossil Fuel Pledge well in excess of what was originally reported by Mass Live. In fact, according to both Mass Live (here) and Huffington Post (here), Senator Markey’s campaign had to return almost $47,000 worth of donations that violated the pledge. Also according to the more recent articles, his campaign seems to be implying that the Fossil Fuel Pledge is complicated and that they needed to carefully review it in order to discover the violations. This is despite the fact that the Fossil Fuel Pledge is one sentence long (included at the top of this post), and that one of the lobbyist groups that donated to Senator Markey’s campaign (Capitol Counsel LLC) is so proud of their fossil fuel representation that they include it at the bottom of their home page, against a bright red background, stating, “Our clients include…Chevron…Exxon Mobile…”. It seems to me that the conflict in accepting these donations would be pretty clear, and it represents some disappointing choices by Senator Markey and his team.
Coming Clean on Fossil Fuel Donations
Please share widely!
Christopher says
I would not take a pledge like this. I believe in playing by the rules you have including raising as much money as you legally can from whatever sources you legally can. There are already caps on how much can be accepted per source precisely to alleviate chances of undue influence, so let’s not get holier than thou about it.
Charley on the MTA says
Well, the lobbyist thing is slightly tricky because lobbyists have multiple clients, which may include fossil interests among others.
Regardless, it’s good and right that he returned the $.
BKay says
I agree, it’s good that he returned the money, and it does take a little effort to know where your campaign donations are coming from. But lobbyists have to disclose their clients, and a quick search of a lobbyist’s name on OpenSecrets shows their clients. Plus, in this case, at least one of the lobbyists in questions (Capitol Counsel LLC) had Chevron and Exxon Mobile posted on the very first page of their website. So it doesn’t seem like it would be hard in this case. I have a lot of respect for Senator Markey, but I have a hard time believing that he and his team didn’t have this information.
More broadly, it’s troubling to me that Senator Markey seems inconsistent when it comes to campaign finance. This isn’t the first time he’s said one thing and done another. Another example is his unwillingness to sign the People’s Pledge for the primary. He’s pushed hard for that in his prior races, so I don’t really understand what’s changed? It seems like getting dark money out of our election is (or should be?) one thing we Democrats can all agree on.
doubleman says
Does JKIII still own millions in fossil fuel company stock?
BKay says
Please see my reply, below. Thanks.
SomervilleTom says
I find it rich that a member of the Kennedy clan uses the “dirty money” trope to attack an incumbent. The bulk of the Kennedy fortune was created during prohibition by the then-patriarch. That family fortune epitomizes dirty money. Ted Kennedy escaped the prosecution and incarceration that would have resulted if any mere mortal did what he did at the island-that-must-not-be-named because of that dirty money.
I wonder how much Kennedy family history the supporters of JKIII (including the OP) actually know. I’m not saying that JKIII should be held accountable because of the sins of his ancestors, but I do think he and his campaign might want to be more cautious about the messaging they choose for their campaign. I strongly suspect that the national Trumpist GOP will be far more aggressive then me in reminding voters of what the “Kennedy” name means to many Americans.
I’m reminded of the dictum so familiar to attorneys — “When the facts are against you, attack the witnesses. When the witnesses are against you, pound the table.”
I think that if JKIII offered substantive differences with Mr. Markey on issues that count, then he and his supporters would focus on those substantive differences. The avoidance of that issues-based messaging tells me that the JKIII campaign is acutely aware of the excellent record of Mr. Markey on virtually all issues of substance.
This entire piece strikes me as attacking the witnesses and pounding the table.
BKay says
I’m not a historian, and I’ve never been particularly interested in “famous families,” so I can’t speak to the behavior of multiple generations of any family, including the Kennedys. But I’m glad we agree that no one should be held responsible for the behavior of their relatives, especially going back 2 or 3 generations. I know I wouldn’t want to be!
What I am focused on are the candidates in *this* race, and I’m delighted that we are in a situation in which both Senator Markey and Congressman Kennedy deserve our respect and appreciation for their work. I also believe that, particularly in this era of politics, *both* substance *and* process matter. So, to clarify my perspective ––
I see that there are some obvious similarities in the way Congressman Kennedy and Senator Markey approach certain issues and might vote of them. I also believe that there are multiple substantive differences between them. For example, as he articulated in a recent interview (link below), Congressman Kennedy is fighting for an end to the electoral college, to prevent continuing the pattern of recent Presidents taking office after losing the popular vote; Congressman Kennedy is arguing for term limits on Supreme Court Justices, to address the extreme polarization we see every time a Justice is appointed (particularly when done so by a President who lost the popular vote); and Congressman Kennedy is advocating to end the filibuster, so that a minority of congressional members elected by a minority of citizens cannot impede progress on issues on which the vast majority of Americans agree (e.g., common sense gun safety measures). Senator Markey has not called for any of these things. These (and other) differences speak not just to how each candidate would vote on specific bills, but on the broader issue of how to address a political system in desperate need of repair. There are other substantive differences that you can hear in the interview linked below, if you’d like.
I also think that the process matters, especially now. As I understand it from multiple media sources, Congressman Kennedy does not have control over any family investments that may involve the fossil fuel industry. But he does have control over how he runs his campaign, and I have not heard him “attack” Senator Markey. I have heard him call for transparency and integrity, including abiding by the Fossil Fuel Pledge and adopting the People’s Pledge, on which Senator Markey previously agreed (and theoretically still does). So I’m concerned that Senator Markey has had these recent issues with the Fossil Fuel Pledge, and is now “stalling” (according to the Boston Globe, link below) on the People’s Pledge. I don’t question Senator Markey’s decency, but I do question some of his recent choices.
Interview:
https://soundcloud.com/user-602934375/9-24-19-joseph-p-kennedy-iii-talks-to-lowell-sun?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_content=https%3A//soundcloud.com/user-602934375/9-24-19-joseph-p-kennedy-iii-talks-to-lowell-sun
Boston Globe:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/10/31/elizabeth-warren-lauds-people-pledge-markey-dithers/mKI4oUd2J8FQMW7uABkg3M/story.html
jconway says
The filibuster reform is a huge litmus test for me. I totally disagree with Bernie or Gillibrand that we should want to keep it in place for the next Kavanaugh. We need to eliminate it. Doing so would have netted us a public option back in 2009 and Garland on the court. I think Democrats will always be the Charlie Brown to the GOP’s Lucy until we start reforming the system and norms they have abused and that give them an unfair and undemocratic advantage. Even with a possible Democratic Senate majority, Manchin, Sienna, or Coons could hold up a Green New Deal. If we want to actually fight climate change, pass some form of Medicare for All, pass some form of gun control, and enrobe a progressive court-the filibuster has got to go.
Christopher says
Or at least make it real again. Require someone to actually be speaking germanely and ditch holds, especially the anonymous kind.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not sure I see how eliminating the filibuster would have changed the outcome of the Garland nomination.
An actual filibuster is physically grueling and nearly impossible to maintain for more than a day or so. That’s one reason why it was so rare until it became weaponized in recent years.
I wonder if you share the opinion of Christopher and me that requiring an actual filibuster — as somebody standing up and speaking — is sufficient.
jconway says
Maybe, I feel like the nostalgia for that predominately comes from Capra or Sorkin fans. In real life, even talking filibusters were used to kill civil rights bills for decades and if the kind of talking we get these days is Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham, I’d rather we just have majority rule in the Senate.. It’s bad enough the framers saddled us with anti-majoritarian state based representation, the least we can do is make the state based body a majoritarian one.
SomervilleTom says
My brief research suggests that the longest filibuster in history was the 1957 attempt by Strom Thurmond to block the Civil Rights act of 1957 — 24 hours and 18 minutes.
I note that the legislation passed and the Senate moved on.
The first use of the modern cloture rule allowing the Senate to end a filibuster after a 2/3 majority vote (since reduced to 60 vote) was to cut off Senate debate over the Treaty of Versailles — even though no filibuster was happening. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was attempting to persuade a Republican majority of the Senate to approve the treaty he had personally negotiated in Paris. The motion passed, debate was cut off — and the treaty was defeated.
The Treaty of Versailles was never ratified and the US never joined the League of Nations (the precursor to today’s UN).
If a majority of the Senate truly wants something, an actual filibuster will not stop it. What it does do is force that majority to be explicit about what they are doing, and force that majority to explicitly address the concerns raised by the minority.
I suggest that the Senate is already as majoritarian as its going to get without fundamental changes to the Constitution — with or without the filibuster.
My bottom line is that I think getting rid of an actual filibuster risks more than it gains.
Christopher says
Filibusters only kill legislation if they leave no time to vote at the end of the session. There were reasons the Framers didn’t want majority rule on everything and keep in mind the cloture ratio is actually less than what Roberts Rules requires to move the previous question. Roberts does require actual speaking and staying on topic so things move along. As a parliamentarian I see the value in requiring supermajorities to infringe on the rights of members to speak.
jconway says
Eh we’re getting in the weeds here. I think we all can agree the cloture vote process has been grossly abused by the Senate GOP-regardless of which party held the majority-for at least the last decade, if not more. I think forcing a talking filibuster would severely decrease the cloture vote abuse. So I would support that reform. Anything is better than the status quo.
SomervilleTom says
@ dirty money:
You are advancing the “dirty money” argument against Ed Markey, apparently without insight into how that argument resonates with people who know and remember why your candidate is a contender.
The bobbing and weaving on the fossil fuel stock is a good example.
He may not have control over them, but he certainly benefits from them. It is certainly within the power of Mr. Kennedy to forswear receiving any benefit or income from his family wealth so long as he remains in office. He hasn’t done that.
Richard Cheney had no control over the behavior of Halliburton while Mr. Cheney served as Vice President. Do you think it was coincidental that the actions he took while in office directly benefited Halliburton to the tune of TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in federal contracts, many of them secret no-bid contracts? Do you think the several million dollars he received in bonuses and deferred compensation from Halliburton while holding office had no influence on his decisions?
Mr. Kennedy directly directly benefits from millions of dollars of fossil fuel stocks. In my view, that direct benefit to Mr. Kennedy is far more likely to influence his behavior than campaign contributions accepted by Mr. Markey.
I think that finding a way to actually divest himself of those holdings would be a far more persuasive campaign message than repeating a litany of various bumper-sticker “pledge” promises.
Some of us who have more experience with the Kennedy family have seen this rodeo before. Some might even suggest that an absence of interest in this family history is an example of the naivete that too often comes along with even well-intentioned youth.
My bottom line is that the fossil fuel trusts that benefit JKIII are more than enough in themselves to expose his bleating about pledges as the empty and hypocritical posturing that they are.
BKay says
It’s been a long time since someone has called me “naïve” or “youthful”, so thanks for that! I’m fast approaching 50, so it gave me a smile.
Maybe clarifying my perspective again would be useful here. I don’t have a “lack of interest” in Congressman Kennedy’s family history. Rather, I’m saying that to my knowledge, none of us are expert in it. Maybe more importantly, that’s not where my focus lies. We both agree that Congressman Kennedy should not be held responsible for the behaviors of his ancestors. By extension, I assume we both agree that we all would like to be judged by our own actions, and that is how I’m forming my opinions on all candidates, including Congressman Kennedy and Senator Markey.
My comment about the Congressman’s lack of control regarding family investments is just objective reality. Your assertion that he has choices about how he addresses personal financial decisions is also reality. As is true for all political candidates, I understand that there are a range of financial options available. However, I would say that your example of Dick Cheney isn’t applicable here. My review of Congressman Kennedy’s voting record (as well as his broader choices) stand in stark contrast to Mr. Cheney. I can’t find a single instance in which Congressman Kennedy’s votes (or other behaviors) benefited the fossil fuel industry. So, I will continue to base my opinion on Congressman Kennedy’s actions, including his ongoing support of the Green New Deal (which he immediately co-sponsored), and his active fight for clean energy across the Commonwealth and the country, as well as his emphasizing the dangerous effects of climate change that disproportionately affect working communities, highlighting the importance of developing off-shore wind energy sources, reforming New England’s energy markets, fighting for the development of a clean energy workforce, and pushing to re-enter the Paris Agreement, among other things. Not exactly Dick Cheney.
SomervilleTom says
Mr. Kennedy is running against Ed Markey, not Mr. Cheney.
Mr. Markey does not have millions of dollars invested in fossil fuel companies like Exxon-Mobil in family trusts that benefit Mr. Markey. Mr. Kennedy does.
I invite you to offer examples where Mr. Kennedy voted differently from Mr. Markey on issues and legislation that affects energy, climate change, and so on.
BKay says
I think we’ve started to go in circles a little. So rather than continuing to go around, I’ll review my perspective as briefly as possible.
1. I respect Senator Markey as a decent man and good Democrat.
2. I’m disappointed by the choices Senator Markey made in accepting campaign donations of approximately $47,000 from lobbyists who represent the fossil fuel industry. This was compounded by his campaign’s initial denials and refusal to return the money. I’m pleased that Senator Markey has now acknowledged the inappropriateness of these donations and returned the money.
3. I understand that there are Kennedy family investments connected to the fossil fuel industry that benefit Congressman Kennedy’s personal finances, and that he has no control over those investments. I further recognize that he has options regarding how to address his personal finances.
4. Unlike others in politics (e.g., as you mentioned, Dick Cheney), Congressman Kennedy’s personal, political, legislative, and policy priorities have never demonstrated any affinity for, or loyalty to, the organization in question (in this case, the fossil fuel industry). In fact, all of Congressman Kennedy’s behaviors demonstrate his prioritizing action on the climate crisis, including immediately co-sponsoring the Green New Deal and a myriad clean energy solutions.
5. I recognize that Senator Markey and Congressman Kennedy vote on legislation related to climate change, clean energy, etc., in similar ways.
6. I maintain that the structural changes for which Congressman Kennedy is advocating (e.g., eliminating the electoral college, ending the filibuster, enacting term limits for Supreme Court Justices, among other things) are substantively different from Senator Markey’s approach, and that these structural changes would meaningfully increase the likelihood of enacting important legislation related to the climate crisis, clean energy, and many other issues.
That’s it.
Christopher says
Markey has been among the most pro-environment, anti-fossil fuel Senators over the past years. Do you really think accepting 47K from lobbyists changes that? He could have kept the money IMO.
SomervilleTom says
I appreciate your perspective. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.
jconway says
The easiest way to resolve this is for neither candidate to have personal or political relationships with the companies they are hoping to regulate. Some day we will have laws that mandate this, until then, they are both climate hypocrites for taking the money or owning the stock. Markey gave the money back. Kennedy should sell the stock. I say this as a supporter of the latter, but he should sell the stock.
SomervilleTom says
@I think he should sell the stock:
I agree.
At the same time, it looks to me as though the two are in very different positions. Mr. Markey accepted a contribution that he’s already returned.
Mr. Kennedy, on the other hand, is a beneficiary of stock held in a family trust. My guess is that he has only limited ability to force its sale. The trust almost certainly includes provisions for what beneficiaries can and cannot do. The tax consequences of a trust that is outside the control of its beneficiaries are profound, and those tax consequences very likely an important motivator for the very existence of the trust.
I don’t know what influence the Kennedy family itself has on the stocks that comprise the trust. Perhaps the family can together cause the divestment.
The difference between the two situations is, in my view, fundamental to the difference in perspective of the two men. Mr. Kennedy’s silver spoon is literally grafted into his body — whether he likes it or not. Even if the family trust divests itself of the fossil fuel stocks, the silver spoon remains embedded in Mr. Kennedy.
I will be very impressed if he takes whatever steps are necessary to remove himself as a beneficiary of the family trust and fortune. I’m not holding my breath, though.