Connect with Us:
The Power of Information
Facebook Page Twitter @enviroblog Youtube Channel Our RSS Feeds
6 Years in a Row
Top rated, 2003-2008
At EWG, our team of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers pores over government data, legal documents, scientific studies and our own laboratory tests to expose threats to your health and the environment, and to find solutions. Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know.
Swamped With Cash: Anti-wetlands PAC Contributions to the House of Representatives
Anti-wetlands PACs have given considerable sums of money to influence current members of Congress. In the 1994 and 1996 campaign cycles (See Note 5,) anti-wetlands PACs associated with members of the National Wetlands Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute made $5.5 million in contributions to current members of the House of Representatives. (Table 4 and Table 5.)
These contributions appear to have yielded results in the legislative arena. An amendment offered on the House floor by Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) that would have restored a scientifically sound definition of wetlands to the Clean Water Act was defeated by a vote of 247 to 180. During the 1994 and 1996 election cycles, anti-wetlands PACs gave more than $4.1 million to members of the House who voted against the Gilchrest amendment, but only $1.15 million to members who voted for the Gilchrest amendment. (See Figure 3.) On average, members of the House who voted for the Gilchrest amendment received about $6,400 each over the period studied, as compared with nearly $17,000 each for members who voted against the amendent. (See Figure 4.)
Eighteen anti-wetlands PACs gave more than $100,000 over the 1994 and 1996 election cycles; their contributions were skewed heavily towards those who voted against the Gilchrest amendment. (See Figure 5.)
Of the 25 top recipients of anti-wetlands PAC money who voted on the Gilchrest amendment, 22 voted against Gilchrest (Table 6). Anti-wetlands PAC contributions during 1995 were particularly tilted in favor members who voted against the Gilchrest amendment: of members who voted against the Gilchrest amendment, 87 percent received anti-wetlands contributions during 1995, while just 55 percent of pro-Gilchrest voters received contributions during 1995. Even contributions to members of the House water and environment subcommittee, of which Rep. Gilchrest is a member, heavily favored members who voted against Rep. Gilchrest's amendment. (See Figure 6.)
