Related Links • Environmental Working Group • Campaign 2000 • Live: "Free Media" • Who do you want to talk to? E-mail us

Thursday, June 22, 2000; 2 p.m. EDT

It's no secret that money opens doors for citizens and groups gain access to policy makers and the political process. And given concerns about climate changes, clean air, water and food safety, the environment is a very important perennial issue for politicians and corporations alike.

Who's giving the big bucks for access to the debate on the environment? Who's cashing the checks? The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit environmental watchdog group, is launching a searchable online database to track the money and the influence of companies EWG describes as "polluter front groups." Readers can search the database by political action committee, issue or member of Congress. Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, will be live online to talk about the new site and the mission of EWG on Thursday, June 22, at 2 p.m. EDT. Read the transcript.

washingtonpost.com: Good afternoon Mr. Cook and welcome. What exactly is the mission of the Environmental Working Group and what do you hope to achieve with the launch of your new database that tracks "polluter front groups?"

Ken Cook: EWG is a nonprofit environmental research organization. We conduct computer investigations on a wide range of environmental topics--air and water pollution, pesticides, farm subsidies, and so on. We are funded by foundations and often work collaboratively with other environmental and consumer groups.

We hope that this new Web site on money and environmental politics prompts both citizens and journalists to examine the full range of factors that influence decisions that politicians make to protect natural resources, the environment and human health.

Brentwood, Tenn.: What is the proof that polluter companies have specifically changed the way a vote on a pollution measure has gone?

Ken Cook: Quite often there is no clear proof--at least not from the FEC data alone. But we do think that patterns of contributions, the positions taken by contributors, and the positions taken by politicians who receive the money deserve discussion. Most politicians just say "I'm pro-business. It has nothing to do with contributions-for-positions--these companies are just supporting me." The companies say: "We have many issues before Congress. These contributions have nothing to do with any particular environmental vote or position."

Our view is that voters--and reporters--need to nose around and find out if someone is taking a strong anti-environmental position that closely mirrors the position of major contributors. Ultimately, voters and reporters may decide there is no link. But we think money buys access and influence--so the first step is to follow the money.

Arlington, Va.: Does the EWG take stands on controversial environmental topics such as climate change? Also, what qualifications do you use to label someone a polluter or environment-friendly?

Ken Cook: We do take stands. Our Web site--www.ewg.org--makes clear our positions on pollution and other issues.

Who's a polluter? Those who pollute. We find that out by examining federal and state databases that report air emissions, discharges to waterways, food contamination with pesticides, and so forth.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think that campaign finance is driving public policy decisions in Congress? Do you think that money in politics will become a more, or less, important issue is elections than it has been in the past?

Ken Cook: Do I ever. Since I came to Washington in 1976--seems like 1876 at times--I've seen the cash culture explode in politics. I also think that it is becoming an issue in elections--not everywhere, and not yet at the national level, but you do see initiatives and voter activism in places like Maine where voters clearly are sick of the bazaar dynamics of policy making. So they vote to do something about it. You may not agree with the various fixes--but the issue is very hot with many people. Some get turned off. Some get angry. But we've found that on environmental issues, people are STUNNED to find that any politician would oppose clean air, safe water, energy efficiency, or safe food. In fact, they are often UNWILLING to believe that ANYONE would support some of the anti-environmental measures that routinely come up in Congress. When they"re looking for an explanation, campaign contributions often ring true. Aha! So that's why he/she voted for dirtier air...etc.

Charlottesville, Va.: Why should companies that pollute not be able to give money to politicians?

Ken Cook: The question is, how much should they give, and should they disclose it? Today, corporations give huge amounts of money--most of it not through their PACs by the way--that gain them political influence in Washington. Voters have a right to know who's writing the checks.

Salt Lake City, Utah: The wilderness debate in Utah has been raging for over a decade now, but with little progress. What shocks me is that the majority of people in Utah support more wilderness, while our elected representatives continually vote against measures that would increase the acreage of federally protected wilderness areas. Can I find out through your Web site who my representatives are listening to, since it's obviously not their constituents?

Ken Cook: www.ewg.org is a good place to start. Check out the public land section--look up the coalitions that support more intensive use of public lands for mining, timber, and other purposes. From there you can go into detail about the PACs affiliated with companies in those anti-enviro coalitions. And from there you can find links to individual donors. But you've asked the classic question: why do they side with special interests instead of their constituents? Is a vote of "conscience" or a vote of "coin"?

Washington, D.C.: How big of an issue do you think the environment will be in campaign 2000--especially in the presidential race? Vice President Gore claims to be the environmental president, but can we trust him to follow through with the promises he's made to protect the environment? What about George W. Bush -- where does he stand? So far Bush seems fairly quiet on the issue.

Ken Cook: I think we will see it as a major issue. We don't take positions on elections. I think you have to examine the records of all the candidates to make a decision. In broad terms, however, Gore certainly has a far stronger record than Bush, notwithstanding some disappointing action\/inaction since 1993 (including some issues we've been pretty vocal about at EWG). As for Nader, there the issue has largely to do with one's sense of what, in the end, a vote for him will accomplish. I strongly recommend a visit to www.lcv.org--the web site of the League of Conservation Voters--to check out their profiles of all candidates, including Gore and Bush (Nader is forthcoming I think).

Arlington, Va.: Who are the worst environmental enemies who are garnering undue influence?

Ken Cook: I hesitate to name only a few, for so many are deserving. I'd say, however, that in our experience the pesticide lobby, and power companies that defend old coal-fired plants, certainly rank pretty high. Er, I mean, low. You get the idea.

washingtonpost.com: Do you work with any other environmental organizations and/or lobbyists? And if so, in what capacity?

Ken Cook: Our research is routinely used by other environmental and consumer groups in their campaigns, and we have co-published research and reports with many other groups since our founding in 1993.

washingtonpost.com: Generally speaking, which politicians does the Environmental Working Group hold in the highest regard and which ones are considered the most unfriendly to the group's cause?

Ken Cook: Highest regard: those with a League of Conservation Voters score above 90 percent.

Lowest regard: those rated below 50 percent by LCV.

washingtonpost.com: The House voted Wednesday to block the Environmental Protection Agency's use of smog data. (See The Post's June 22nd article, "House Votes to Restrict EPA use of Smog Data"). How will this effect how the government tracks down highly polluted areas? And, how hot an issue do you think this will be in the 2000 elections? Can we expect a fight from the EPA?

Ken Cook: If this decision stands, people will be in the dark about pollution in their communities. It's basically like telling cops to enforce drunk driving laws but taking away their breathalyzers. It's all about muzzling EPA--and I think you can expect it to come up in the elections and to be fiercely contested by EPA and the White House. This amendment is a polluting power company's dream. I expect the trucking industry is pretty pleased, too. But voters won't be.

Washington, D.C.: Which corporations, according to your database, donate the most money to candidates? Which candidates have received the most money from polluters? What are environmental record do those candidates have?

Ken Cook: Check it out:

http://gsi.ewg.org/fp.acgi$topsuper?

These are the "Big Winners" in the 2000 election cycle.

Sens. Spencer Abraham (MI), Rick Santorum (PA), and Christopher "Kit" Bond (MO). Sen. Ashcroft (MO) is up there too.

washingtonpost.com: In your opinion, has Vice President Gore been as strong a friend of the environment as he positions himself to be? How does the Clinton-Gore administration's record compare to previous presidential administrations?

Ken Cook: Environmentalists are paid to be impatient and demanding--we always want politicians to do more, and the Veep is no exception. But to get to your second question, the administration has done an enormous amount on environmental issues. Where would we like them to do even more? Global warming, pesticides, factory farms...

I'd rank this Administration very favorably on environmental performance...even though I'd like them to do much more.

Reston, Va.: Have you seen a lot of party crossing when it comes to how politicians are voting on environmental bills? It seems to me that with 58 Democrats supporting the Republican decision to veto the EPA's use of smog data, we can expect a trend in that direction? Or was that just one incident?

Ken Cook: I haven't looked at this particular vote, but on clean air there tends to be a core of Midwest Democrats who consistently protect polluters in their own states. Likewise, a core of moderate Republicans (N'east, CA, elsewhere) can be counted on the vote against their party and in defense of the environment.

The working majority on these matters shifts around according to the issue. Compared to, say, 1996, it has tended to be much harder for extreme anti-environmental votes to prevail in the House. But many bad votes have narrowly carried, all the same. Again, check www.lcv.org for details.

washingtonpost.com: Once again, Ralph Nader is running for president as a candidate for the Green Party. He's admitted he doesn't expect to win but hopes to impact the dialogue of the race. Is his candidacy one that the EWG would support?

Ken Cook: As I noted before, EWG is not in the endorsement business. Nader has long been a champion of the environment and has very strong support from many in the enviro community. The question, again, is how does a vote for him play? Does it help elect Bush--the opposite end of the spectrum? Is it worth it to have Nader elevate environmental issues through his candidacy--and to vote for him in November--if that risks having Bush in the White House by taking votes from Gore? Some enviros think so. But LCV--the political arm of the national environmental movement--has endorsed Gore.

Arlington Va.: You guys are nonpartisan. How come all the bad guys seem to be Republicans?

Ken Cook: It's interesting that the big money winners from dirty PACs all have terrible environmental voting records. We didn't know that it would work out that way, but it did. But let me emphasize that the environment has a great many friends in the Republican Party. Shays. Boehlert. The late John Chafee. And many others.

Ken Cook: Thanks to everyone who participated. Look for an update when we get the July FEC data, and for other features we'll be posting on the site.

Free Media: Thank you Ken Cook for joining Free Media today. Tune in for more live online discussions when Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), Fri. 12 p.m., followed by Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.), 1 p.m. talk about campaign 2000 and the recently released Battleground Poll.

   |       |