Why would a man in Salt Lake City, Utah, contribute $1,000 to the re-election campaign of a congressman in Southwest Michigan?
If the man is Val J. Christensen, CEO of Energy Solutions, a $214 million nuclear waste disposal and recycling company, and the congressman is 6th District U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, it could have something to do with Upton’s stance on nuclear power recycling and waste disposal. It could also have something to do with Upton’s being the third-most-senior Republican on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Of the approximately $1 million Upton raised in campaign contributions reported to the Federal Election Commission on March 31, Energy Solutions was the top contributor. The $38,000 ($28,800 from individuals and $10,000 from Energy Solutions’ political action committee) was far more than the second-biggest contributor, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc., which donated $8,500.
The contribution from Energy Solutions comes as the Obama administration is planning to spend $54.5 billion in taxpayer-backed government loans to spur construction of new nuclear power plants, which cost about $12 billion each to build.
The last nuclear power plant went online in 1996, with construction beginning in 1977, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Waste from nuclear power plants is radioactive for 1 million years. Most of it is stored on-site, but Upton is among the politicians and nuclear industry leaders advocating all storage be inside Yucca Mountain in Nevada. With Senate Majority Leader U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, a Yucca Mountain disposal opponent, trailing in the polls, Upton is part of the renewed push to make it the nation’s nuclear waste storage site.
Upton has two nuclear power plants in his district, D.C. Cook in Lake Township and Palisades in Covert Township. Both are large employers, and both store their waste on-site.
In a written statement Thursday commemorating Earth Day, Upton trumpeted nuclear recycling and called for building new plants to increase U.S. energy independence and create jobs. Upton also rebuked the Obama administration for planning to scrap making Yucca Mountain the nation’s nuclear waste dump.
“Most experts agree that spent nuclear fuel should be located at one site, deep within the bedrock of Nevada’s Mojave Desert for thousands of years rather than in temporary stockpiles scattered across the country,” Upton said.
“While I remain a staunch proponent of Yucca Mountain, we should embark on a recycling program for spent nuclear fuel.”
That would be good for Energy Solutions, whose profits dropped $33 million from 2008 to 2009. Campaign finance reform advocates say it’s no coincidence that donations are steered to politicians whose votes are likely to increase the profits of the corporations the donors are linked to.
“They’re just trying to get him to do what they want,” said John Dunbar, American University Investigative Workshop project director in Washington, D.C.
Dunbar was a longtime observer of Upton’s campaign contributions while working as a lawyer for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog in Washington, D.C. “It’s not so hard to vote for a nuclear waste dump (2,000) miles from your district,” Dunbar said.
Dave Levinthal, a spokesman with the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C., said companies like Energy Solutions — whose spokesman didn’t return Herald-Palladium calls for comment — are trying to buy access, not votes.
“It’s a lot more difficult to slam the door in the face of somebody who’s been a loyal donator to their campaign,” said Levinthal, whose nonprofit organization monitors campaign contributions. “It’s a lot harder for them to not take a phone call from a loyal donator.”
Upton said he hasn’t spoken with Energy Solutions officials this year. He believes their donation is not an attempt to buy influence, but comes because of his longtime support for nuclear power.
“I get support from all around the country,” Upton said in a Friday interview. “Most people know I’m a strong nuclear supporter.”
Upton, who took office in 1987, has raised about $1 million. His main Republican challenger, former state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk of Texas Township near Kalamazoo, reported raising just $5,381.
Levinthal attributes the disparity to the power of incumbency, noting that 94 percent of House incumbents retained their seats in the 2008 elections.
“Donors like to be on a winning team,” Levinthal said. “You’re going to get a lot of love from them.”
Incumbents raise exorbitant amounts of money to intimidate potential opponents into not running, Levinthal said.
Influence over politicians could increase with the Citizens United verdict by the Supreme Court in January, he said.
The decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising. The ruling could further entrench incumbents or dilute the power of incumbency because a corporation or union could spend on a challenger if the incumbent won’t play ball.
“This has the potential to change the way campaigns are waged,” Levinthal said. “Since there’s no precedent, we’re going to see how this works pretty much beginning now.”
Upton noted that he’s voted for campaign finance reform in the past and is concerned that the Citizens United decision will increase influence peddling. Nonetheless, he plans to continue raising money, following the “be prepared” motto he learned in the Boy Scouts.
“We don’t know what’s going to come our way, (and) campaigns are expensive,” he said. “We raise what we can and need to.”
– from istockanalyst.com