Thread by @snocialism

A year ago, I set out to identify and examine the corporate donors to @larsenrick's campaigns to help demonstrate the connections between his centrist business-friendly attitudes with the sacks of cash he would receive from industry special interests.

https://twitter.com/snocialism/status/1229998753500647424

With @CallForCongress challenging Rick again for 2022, I went back to basics and began looking into the donors again, now with greater knowledge of how to sort and analyze the data. What I've come away with is a much deeper understanding of just who is giving @larsenrick money.

I started with Rick's Climate Criminals last time, and that's where I'll begin again this time.

Altogether, 47 fossil fuel corporations and PACs—including Exxon Mobil and BP—have given #GreenNewDeal opponent @RepRickLarsen at least $433,699 since 2002.

callforcongress.com/larsen/ricks-c…

This is pretty close to an exhaustive list compiled by sifting through over 15,000 contributions made over two decades and approaches what @OpenSecretsDC has totaled for contributions from “Energy and Natural Resources PACs”: $457,506. Meaning, this is just about everybody.

Over those two decades, @RepRickLarsen has repeatedly joined Republicans and opposed Democrats in votes that would have advanced good environmental and climate policies—at the same time he was returning to his constituents at home and telling them he was a climate champion.

June 22, 2011: Rick was 1 of 16 Democrats to vote against requiring oil companies to disclose the federal subsidies they receive when applying for new permits: congress.gov/amendment/112t…

Five days later, he received $1,000 from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.

February 15, 2012: Rick was 1 of 11 Democrats to vote against requiring oil drilling leases to include information about the possible worst-case scenarios resulting from an oil spill: congress.gov/amendment/112t…

In 2012, he received at least $22,925 from 13 fossil fuel PACs.

May 22, 2013: Rick was 1 of 11 Democrats to vote against requiring the GAO to conduct a study of the Keystone XL pipeline to determine the total projected costs of an oil spill cleanup, including the potential impacts on public health and the environment: congress.gov/amendment/113t…

Later that year, Citizens to Elect Rick Larsen received $2,000 from the American Gas Association, a fossil fuel trade group supportive of the Keystone XL pipeline.

April 30, 2015: Rick voted against all three amendments to legislation that would have cut funding to fossil fuel research. He voted no to cutting it by $45 million: congress.gov/amendment/114t…

Or by $34 million to fund renewable energy: congress.gov/amendment/114t…

Or even by $20 million to fund water resources: congress.gov/amendment/114t…

In 2015's H.R. 2028, @RepRickLarsen voted down every single proposed cut to publicly-funded fossil fuel research. And this man wants to claim that he believes in climate change? That's perhaps even worse.

Here's what @keithellison had to say about it at the time:

“I do not think my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota need to foot the bill for R&D for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhllips.”

Rick voted against the cut anyway.

The following month, Citizens to Elect Rick Larsen received $1,000 from the Association of Oil Pipelines.

July 8, 2015: Rick was 1 of 7 Democrats to vote against over $5.4 million in additional funding to the Inland Oil Spill Program: congress.gov/amendment/114t…

The very next day, he reported getting $1,000 from Chesapeake Energy, $1,000 from NiSource, and $2,500 from Tesoro Petroleum.

December 2, 2015: Rick was 1 of 4 Democrats to vote against a carbon impact study to be completed and published for H.R. 8, a bill that would strip requirements for Congressional authorization for constructing a natural gas pipeline across federal lands: congress.gov/amendment/114t…

The @NPCA urged House members to vote no, citing concerns about allowing the construction of pipelines in national parks. Rick voted to make the legislation worse anyway. Less than 3 weeks later, the Association for Oil Pipelines gave $1,000.

September 12, 2019: Rick was 1 of only 3 Democrats that voted to delay repealing oil and gas programs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge until Alaska Natives are “thoroughly consulted regarding the effect” on their “quality of life and future”: congress.gov/amendment/116t…

Science has demonstrated to us that the costs of delaying action on the climate are far worse than the near-term economic impacts. Nevertheless, Rick voted with Republicans to place this roadblock to repealing fossil fuel programs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Citizens to Elect Rick Larsen received at least $17,000 from fossil fuel corporations and trade groups in 2019, including $1,500 from Exxon Mobil and a $1,500 contribution from the Association of Oil Pipelines merely two weeks after this vote.

Rick wasn't alone in casting these votes, he was joined by other Democrats to advance measures harmful to the climate and helpful to the profiteering fossil fuel industry. For example, that vote to cut fossil fuel R&D to fund renewable energy? @RepJimCosta voted against it, too.

Costa was challenged by @Esmeralda_Soria, noting that—like Larsen—his campaigns have accepted troubling amounts of money from fossil fuel interests. And, like Larsen, a consortium of corporate donors that included the Koch Brothers.

theintercept.com/2019/12/15/cal…

The vote against funds for the Inland Oil Spill Program? Rick was joined by @RepSchrader, who was challenged last year by @mark_gamba.

• Proposed on June 25th.
• Petroleum Marketers Association gives $1,500 on July 3rd.
• Schrader votes against the amendment on July 8th.

.@larsenrick is just one of many corporate Democrats who must be ousted from power if we are to achieve the bold changes necessary to combat the climate crisis.

Donate to his challenger, and #GreenNewDeal supporter, @CallForCongress: callforcongress.com/donate

Always good to proofread, kids: these contributions came a day after *the amendment was proposed*. The actual vote took place later on July 8th. Was @RepRickLarsen’s vote influenced by the money? We may never know.

Welp, and I seemed to have included Exxon's contribution twice. While still awful on its own, I'd be remiss if I forgot to post the FEC receipt for the contribution from the Association of Oil Pipelines given to @larsenrick two weeks after he made this vote.