The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.
The story of the election so far, in terms of who won the counting of the votes, is that it was a clean sweep around here for the Democrats.
But the reality for most of the Washington congressional delegation is that they’ve been demoted. Due to the GOP winning back control of the U.S. House, the state’s eight House Democrats are about to be relegated to the backbencher status of being in the minority.
Mostly overlooked then has been the state’s biggest winner (after U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, of course). That would be U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican who represents the far east side of the state.
She wasn’t overlooked by the nation’s big money interests, though.
Even with a campaign that attracted very little attention or opposition spending, McMorris Rodgers is finishing the year as the No. 1 recipient of PAC contributions for any House candidate in the nation.
Corporations and other interest groups use PACs, or political action committees, to funnel money to favored politicians. McMorris Rodgers not only raked in more from PACs than any of the other 800 or so House candidates, but her nearly $3 million from corporate PACs outpaced the runner-up, a Republican congressman from Illinois, by nearly 40 percent, according to the Committee for Responsible Politics, which tracks the money game at opensecrets.org.
Why would such a safe seat be a honey pot for corporate cash?
Money in politics often flows toward conflict, such as tight, noisy, important campaigns. But money also flows quietly in anticipation of power.
With Republicans taking the House, McMorris Rodgers is set to take command of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This is no small deal — especially for Big Oil, which wants to drill more on federal land, or for climate change activists and environmentalists, who are trying to stop them.
McMorris Rodgers’ $3 million in PAC contributions (she raised $6 million overall) comes from every industry imaginable, including telecom, drugmakers, bankers, airlines, insurance and Big Tech such as Microsoft and Amazon.
One of her largest categories is oil and gas. She has been open about using her new position to push for drill, baby, drill.
“We need to Flip the Switch on American energy now to bring down costs,” she said in a recent Energy and Commerce news release, meaning ramping up “coal, oil, natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear power.”
McMorris Rodgers has been one of Congress’ top skeptics of a green energy transition.
All of this forecasts a showdown over green energy and climate change. Conservative groups are pushing Republicans to simply abolish Congress’ Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. (Because if it’s not there holding meetings, then it’s no longer a crisis?)
Environmentalists say they’re hoping that with split control of the House and Senate, maybe there will just be gridlock, instead of major setbacks on green energy policy.
For example: Staring down McMorris Rodgers across the Capitol rotunda is almost certain to be Sen. Maria Cantwell. Because Democrats kept control of the Senate, Cantwell and McMorris Rodgers now are essentially opposite numbers. Cantwell took over the Senate’s Commerce Committee last year, and also sits on Senate Energy and Natural Resources, where she has been a longtime advocate for green energy and foe of more oil drilling.
Where does Cantwell rank in PAC donations? At the bottom, because she doesn’t take corporate PAC donations. (She has $0 reported for her upcoming campaign.)
All of this means that the nation’s energy change battle will now be waged in large measure through proxies in Washington state. East side versus west, old energy versus new, two former state legislators turned political power players on the national stage.
It would maybe be entertaining. Except the quiet money doesn’t often lose. Plus it’s only the planet’s climate potentially hanging in the balance.
