Goose wrote:

So, what was the quid pro quo?
 

Interesting this question keeps coming up. 

Let's look at this another way....

For years now, the scientific consensus has been that climate change is occurring and is caused mainly by the actions of human beings. So why, during the first month of the current Congress, did nearly half the Senate – all Republicans – vote against an amendment stating that human activities contribute significantly to climate change?

We don’t know.

But we can say that those who voted for the amendment received less than one-fifth as much in campaign contributions from the oil & gas and coal industries as those who voted against it.

Senators who have publicly denied that humans have had a significant impact on climate change took in an average of $467,022 more from the coal mining and oil & gas industries since 2010 than those who have publicly accepted humans’ role in the global rise in temperature.

Campaign contributions from fossil fuel industries are likely not the only incentive for senators to avoid acknowledging man’s impact on the climate. Many of those who voted against the amendment, and who also received significant sums from oil & gas and/or coal mining, hail from states with heavy production of either crude oil or coal.

And there are anomalies, highlighting how economic interests, campaign contributions and personal beliefs are hard to tease apart in searching for what motivates a vote in Congress.

For instance, nine senators who voted against the amendment come from states that don’t produce significant amounts of coal or oil. They’re also not on the Senate Energy Committee. These senators received an average of $341,811 from coal mining and oil & gas between 2010 and mid-2016.

.....Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee that oversees climate legislation, once brought a snowball to the Senate floor as a way to demonstrate his view that climate change is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people,” though he later voted for an amendment stating that climate change is real. (Climate change refers to rising average global temperatures, not an absence of all sub-zero temperatures.) Inhofe has received $772,100 from the oil & gas and coal mining industries.

....Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has received the most money from these interest groups – over $1.6 million – since 2010.

Question:

Is there quid pro quo for campaign contributions in exchange for anti-climate change votes?

Last edited by TheLagerLad (8/29/2016 7:16 pm)

Goose wrote:

So, you have no idea

I don't get the connection either. I guess anyone could claim their COULD be influence. What I want is ANYTHING that connects their contributions to ANYTHING concrete of substance. 

Till I read something concrete I can only assume there is nothing. 


 

Goose wrote:

So, you have no idea

It looks just as bad when money is given to a Senator with the assumption that something will be returned in-kind than it is when a foreign government gives money to the foundation of a sitting Secretary of State with the assumption that something will be returned in-kind.

Because the whole thing is shady. You can't prove John Cornyn voted against climate change legislation because he receives campaign donations from oil interests. You can certainly question it, but you can't prove it. 

So how is that any different than big money going to the Clinton foundation while Hillary Clinton is active in government?

It's either all good or it's all questionable, right?
 

Aren't the same folks who give Cornyn a pass every day jumping up and down in feigned outrage about Clinton?

Yes! And the same people who have complained about the ridiculous amount of money in politics for years are now giving Clinton a pass. 

That's my point. They hypocrisy of it all. 

And it wouldn't be apples of apples if John Cornyn was in government and Hillary was not. But she has been in and out of government since 2000 and will again be in a couple of months. 

And no one has been able to answer why the Saudis, who have a deplorable history of rights for women or the LGBT community would have a particular interest in the Clinton Foundation's work in improving those areas.