Fracking bans: Industry cash raised to fight them tops $600,000

fracking.illustration.205x205.jpg
Last week, we reported that the oil and gas industry has already donated enough cash in opposition to a proposed five-year moratorium on new drilling in Boulder to outspend backers of the measure 30-1. As the November election draws nearer and more campaign finance reports trickle in, it turns out the Boulder ballot issue is one of several that fracking interests are spending freely to defeat. In just four of the Front Range battles over local control of drilling, the industry has ponied up sums totaling more than $600,000.

Last month, as noted previously, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association donated $110,237 to Boulder Citizens for Rational Energy Decisions, the group opposing the five-year moratorium. COGA is also the principal supporter of the Fort Collins Alliance for Reliable Energy, having forked over a whopping $254,134 to defeat a proposal for a five-year suspension of new drilling activities in that city. By contrast, as noted in this report in the Fort Collins Coloradan, supporters of the Fort Collins moratorium have raised less than $4000.

colorado.oil.and.gas.association.logo.jpg
And on the other side of Boulder, COGA is the primary donor to the Broomfield Balanced Energy Coalition ($156,238) and It's Our Broomfield, Too! ($15,000), the two issue committees formed to oppose a moratorium there. Add to that the $66,974 the trade group has donated to the Lafayette Campaign for Energy Choice in an effort to squelch Question 300, which would ban oil and gas drilling in Lafayette. All told, COGA has cut checks amounting to $602,684 in an effort to persuade voters in those four cities that multiyear bans on fracking -- the hydraulic fracturing technique that utilizes water mixed with toxic chemicals to extract oil and gas from tight shale formations thousands of feet below the surface -- are injurious to the economy and unnecessary.

While it's too early to call the elections, the big winner in this war-chest sweepstakes so far is iKue Strategies, a Denver-based consulting firm that appears to be orchestrating the upcoming media blitz against the moratoria. Despite iKue's ethereal, leave-no-footprint kind of web presence, four of the five issue committees mentioned above have funneled nearly $400,000 of their COGA money to iKue for its services.

Doug Flanders, COGA's policy director, responded to questions about the organization's role in the local campaigns with an e-mailed statement: "On behalf of the 100,000 Colorado families who have an enormous stake in the outcome of these ballot initiatives, we are financially supporting the local groups who oppose the bans. Banning a product we all use every day is damaging to the Colorado brand of compromise and reasonableness. These bans are not an energy plan."

Sam.Schabacker.mark.manger.jpg
Photo by Mark Manger
Sam Schabacker.
Critics of the fracking industry have been quick to point out the paucity of local donors to the "local groups" COGA is supporting. Food & Water Watch regional director Sam Schabacker notes that in the effort to defeat Longmont's ban on fracking last year, oil and gas companies donated hefty sums (totaling close to half a million dollars) directly rather than through COGA, but there was an absence of local donors to the opposition in that election, too.

Continue for more about industry cash to fight local fracking bans.


My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

If someone tried to ban your business, you'd spend money fighting it too.

Oh, forgot. It's easier to criticize business than to do business.

Doug Hubka
Doug Hubka

Shouldn't even be a question. Of course they are trying to buy the election. That is the way things work these days. The public wants one thing, business interests buy their way into getting what they want.

Steve Holmberg
Steve Holmberg

How many wells are still leaking after the floods? Does the public even know?

Benjamin Bradburn
Benjamin Bradburn

Is be fine with cracking if there was adequate regulation. Having a moratorium makes sense. I think this is a rhetorical question?

Natasha Schwertley
Natasha Schwertley

Of course. Their bottom line is money. They don't need to care about human life or impacts to the environment or local economies when everyone moves to escape the effects on their drinking water and air. Sadly, it appears their "safe" lies work. Guess some think the profits of these companies are more important than their own personal health. Oh, except they probably don't live near a fracking site, so they don't have to care about those impacts. Just an issue for people they'll never likely meet. God bless America, right?

Scott Ingalsbe
Scott Ingalsbe

Fracking is here to stay. Hippies need to realize that.

Josh Moore
Josh Moore

I hope they do! All these environmentalist, alarmist left wing nut bags are what is ruining this earth. Not Fracking.

Kevin A. Mahmalji
Kevin A. Mahmalji

In all honesty, they can probably put away the cash and just rely on their buddy, Governor Hickenlooper. What a joke!

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...