Ad hoch

Nearly $200 million spent on energy ads since Obama’s inauguration 7

moneyCross-posted from Wonk Room.

Politico reports that interest groups and corporations have spent nearly $200 million on TV ads since President Obama’s inauguration to manipulate American energy policy reform. According to an analysis by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, $199.5 million was directed from January 20th to March 31st to television issue ads on energy, the environment, and climate. $54.5 million of the ads were about oil and gas alone:

According to CMAG’s analysis, between Obama’s January 20 Inauguration and the end of March, most TV ad spending was directed toward energy and the environment, which saw $115.1 million worth of ads. The next biggest targets were gas and oil issues, which were the subject of $54.5 million in ad buys, followed by labor, stimulus and budget-related issues ($41.9 million), climate change ($29.9 million), and health care ($27.5 million).

Why is corporate America on track to spend $1 billion this year on a television barrage about energy policy?

President Obama’s clean energy agenda, like his proposals for health care and labor reform, threatens the corrupt business model of the corporate right. Closing the carbon loophole with a cap-and-trade system will create a strong, healthy foundation for our national recovery—but pollution will no longer be free for ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and Peabody Coal. So they are trying to either block reform entirely, or—for those corporations that recognize the necessity of action—to ensure that their pollution is subsidized by the American taxpayer, through pollution permit giveaways or other handouts.

Brad Johnson blogs at the Wonk Room on the climate crisis, energy policy, and building a green economy. Brad holds a bachelor’s degree in math and physics from Amherst College and master’s degree in geosciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the co-author of Technomanifestos, a history of the Information Revolution, and the founder of HillHeat.com, which covers climate policy in our nation’s capital.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 2:39 pm
    20 Apr 2009

    For a number of reasons, the American political system is a very expensive entity (among them, the continuing opinion of courts that spending money is a form of free speech). In some ways, the $200M figure represents just how active and important the dialogue is, though I agree that it is somewhat offputting given the urgent need to invest in low-carbon technologies.

    Some of the corporate greenwashing has certainly been absurd. For instance, this Lockheed ad.

    Permalink

  2. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 3:05 pm
    20 Apr 2009

    Actually, it's in the interest of the megalith businesses to increase the barriers to entry to small and midcap businesses with such artificialities as "Global Warming". Because the big guys can afford to pay for "environmentalism" and the little guys can't...environmentalism, like expensive health care, restricts people from starting and running their own businesses instead of folding into the big corporations. 

    Permalink

  3. erinrichie Posted 5:37 pm
    20 Apr 2009

    i wonder if that money could have been spent better?????

    Permalink

  4. Scott G Posted 6:59 pm
    20 Apr 2009

    Wow. This is nuts. I still can't get my head around: "most TV ad spending was directed toward energy and the environment..." Most! The quality/sincerity/agenda of these ads are up for discussion, but just the fact these issues are on the table-- in the mainstream-- is amazing to me. Would we have seen this 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Say what you want about these ads, but damn we're living in some interesting times.The way public conciousness of ecological issues has ramped up is fascinating, I think. 

    Permalink

  5. Scott G Posted 7:04 pm
    20 Apr 2009

    And I wonder what that spending figure would be if print ads were factored in. I remember counting something like 11 sustainability-themed spreads in a recent New Yorker. It's getting to the point where I could wallpaper my apartment with tear-outs of renewable energy ads.

    Permalink

  6. Bill Harris Posted 2:26 am
    21 Apr 2009

    Anders: I’m hoping to get a breakdown on who did the spending from
    CMAG. Unfortunately, the author is traveling this week. It’s safe to
    assume that the gas & oil breakout is entirely API/oil company
    advertising. The “good guys” are helping shift the political climate but they’re
    also working for massive subsidies to support their interests — on top
    of the benefits they would rightly gain from being leaders in a clean
    energy economy.http://www.Start-an-Internet-business.net

    Permalink

  7. brookehughs Posted 9:59 pm
    26 Apr 2009

    Talk is cheap. so to speak. Action is much better then words. That money could have made real wonders in R&D into new energy resources. But the deed has been done and what has been gained from it nothing. what a waste

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement