Any Americans who paid taxes last year– employed, semi-employed, unemployed, between gigs, recession-rattled Republicans, Democrats or independents– any American who paid taxes last year paid more than did all of the five corporations in the study, combined.

It will come as little surprise to residents of Colorado that, when it came to spending on ballot measures, the corporations unloaded 90 percent of their cash here and in California.

In 2008, ExxonMobil and Chevron gave a total of $2.4 million to a political committee called “Coloradans For a Stable Economy,” which was organized to defeat Amendment 58. The amendment sought to hike the amount of state severance taxes paid on oil and gas extracted in the state and, with the help of the generous giving of the corporations who would have had to pay the severance taxes, it failed.

In state races, the corporations gave nearly double the amount of cash to Republican candidates and causes than they did to Democratic candidates and causes. Most of all, however, they gave to incumbent candidates. Overwhelmingly, the corporate cash was well placed because, remarkably, in four out of five cases, it backed a winner.

From the report:

+ $17 million went to Republican candidates and party committees; $9.7 million went to Democrats.
+ 85 percent ($15.2 million) of the $17.9 million given to candidates went to incumbents.
+ More than three out of every four dollars given to candidates went to winners.
+ $2.4 million was given to candidates not up for reelection in the election during which the money was given.

Most all of the five corporations spent greater sums in Washington than in the states, seeking to influence federal laws. Chevron was the exception. The company gave $5 million to federal campaigns and $55 million to state candidates and causes.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

ExxonMobil reported first quarter 2011 profits of $10.7 billion compared to $6.3 billion in 2010, a 69.8-percent increase. The nation’s largest oil and gas company spent $12.45 million on lobbying in 2010 and made $928,959 in political contributions to Republicans and $109,500 to Democrats.

Chevron, which reported Q1 profits of $6.2 billion in 2011 compared to $4.55 billion in 2010, spent more on lobbying in 2010 ($12.89 million) but less on political contributions ($473,000 to Republicans and $122,000 to Democrats).

While citing a growing number of Republicans on the record backing an end to oil and gas subsidies – including House Speaker John Boehner – Checks and Balances points out key Republican committee members continue to block such efforts, including House Natural Resources Committee subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn of Colorado.

“These profit reports show big oil is making big bucks from high gas prices at the pump,” Denver-based Checks and Balances Deputy Director Matt Garrington said in a release. “Big oil spent $63 million lobbying Congress and $2 million in campaign contributions last year so politicians would hand out $4 billion every year in taxpayer-funded subsidies.”

Lamborn last month voted against ending royalty relief for offshore drilling companies and has been hammering on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for policies limiting drilling on federal lands. Salazar fired back that oil and gas companies aren’t coming close to utilizing all the leases they currently hold on public lands around the nation.

The report also finds more than 40 instances of Koch Industries donating to groups that have in the past opposed climate legislation.

Some examples from the report:

• “More than $5 million to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) for its nationwide ‘Hot Air Tour’ campaign to spread misinformation about climate science and opposing clean energy and climate legislation.”
• “$365,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) which advocates against taking action on climate change because warming is ‘inevitable’ and expensive to address.”
• “$360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which supported and funded An Inconvenient Truth…or Convenient Fiction, a film attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary. PRIPP also threatened to sue the US Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.”

Update: It turns out, this report came out in March. But it’s still worth taking a look at, given all the talk about the Koch brothers.

After taking BP to task for allowing the spill to occur, Markey said, “Now the other companies here today will contend that this was an isolated incident. They will say a similar disaster could never happen to them.”

And so they did. “This incident represents a dramatic departure from the industry norm in deepwater drilling,” said ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. And Chevron chairman John Watson said his company’s “drilling and control practices for deepwater wells are safe and environmentally sound.”

But Markey would have none of it. “What we found was that these five companies have response plans that are virtually identical,” he said.

“The covers of the five response plans are different colors, but the content is ninety percent identical,” Markey continued. “Like BP, three other companies include references to protecting walruses, which have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years. Two other plans are such dead ringers for BP’s that they list a phone number for the same long-dead expert.”

The dismissal by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Comer v. Murphy Oil came after half of the court’s 16 judges recused themselves from hearing the appeal, effectively negating an October decision by a three-judge panel on the same court that allowed the case to proceed. The Comer class action suit was filed by Gulf Coast residents seeking financial damages from more than two dozen oil and coal companies for the local havoc wreaked by Hurricane Katrina, which the plaintiffs argued was exacerbated by the effects of global warming.

The plaintiffs now must decide whether to seek a hearing in the Supreme Court, an outcome deemed all but inevitable by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in a Friday blog post reacting to the dismissal.

“Expect more appeals and suits from plaintiffs hoping to hit the jackpot and environmental activists trying to create a carbon-command-and-control economy through the courts,” NAM’s Carter Wood wrote. The group is a vocal critic of congressional climate legislation and filed a brief supporting an en banc hearing of the Comer case by the full Fifth Circuit after the initial ruling allowing the case to proceed.

Greenwire reported today (sub. req’d.) that the high number of Fifth Circuit recusals in Comer — generally an indication that judges have personal ties to the companies or law firms involved, such as stock ownership — “infuriated environmentalists” who viewed the moves as a sign that industry has all but captured the appeals court in the Gulf region. But a legal analysis published last month by the firm McGuire Woods suggested that the nation’s highest court could face similar recusal hiccups in deciding whether to hear a Comer appeal:

[T]he mass recusal of members of the 5th Circuit in Comer begs the question as to whether such recusals would be an issue for the U.S. Supreme Court as well. Initial analysis suggests it would. Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself on several occasions from cases involving ExxonMobil due to his ownership of its stock. See, e.g., Exxon Shipping v. Baker; American Isuzu v. Ntsebeza. Likewise, Justice Steven Breyer has recused himself from cases involving BP due to his ownership of its stock. See, e.g., New Jersey v. Delaware; Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility Dist. 1. Both ExxonMobil and BP are defendants in the Comer suit.

Similarly, Justice Sonia Sotomayor would also likely recuse herself due to her participation in the Connecticut v. American Electric Power case [another high-profile climate case] when she was on the 2nd Circuit. … Indeed, it may not even be possible for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear any appeal in Comer.

The recusal issue, as Greenwire notes, could also come into play as lawsuits stemming from BP’s role in the Deepwater Horizon disaster move forward. We have a call in to the plaintiffs’ counsels in the Comer case, seeking word on whether they plan to petition for a Supreme Court hearing, and will update this post as more becomes known.

www.willyoujoinus.com

While walking around Washington, it’s hard to miss all the large Chevron ads. They are at bus stops and in metro stations, and they feature “everyday people” promising to conserve energy. “I will carpool to work,” one person in the ad says. “I will take the golf clubs out of the trunk,” promises another. “I will leave the car at home more,” pledges a third.

And, in each one, Chevron vows it will conserve energy, too.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Chevron launched its “I will” campaign last month in Washington, Houston and cities throughout California. The new ads continue the oil company’s “Power of Human Energy” ad campaign that began about a year ago. Through TV spots, print ads, billboards and a website called Will You Join Us, Chevron says it seeks to raise awareness about energy conservation and efficiency.

But exactly how green can an oil company claim to be? And will consumers buy its claims?

Chevron, America’s second largest oil company, with profits of $18.7 billion last year, isn’t the only oil producer spending millions to burnish its image. Like other big oil companies, it has switched gears from ignoring or denying climate change to announcing it role in combating this problem, oil experts say.

For example, if you’ve turned on the TV lately, you’ve probably seen a commercial like this from ExxonMobil:

Exxon, the country’s biggest oil company, with profits last year of $39.5 billion, recently launched its environmental-themed ad campaign. BP was perhaps ahead of this curve — for British Petroleum started rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum” in 2000.

Some experts say Chevron and all the other oil companies will have to work a lot harder to gain the trust of consumers, who are finally getting some relief at the pumps after gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon this summer. They say the companies will have to transform their actions, not just their images.

Chevron says it differs from the other oil companies because it invests in clean technologies and fuel efficiency. Those who study the oil industry assert that the company’s investment is minor when compared to its large profits.

www.willyoujoinus.com

But Kimberly Beman the Chevron spokeswoman said, “Between 2007 and 2009, Chevron has projected spending of more than $2.5 billion for alternatives, renewables and energy-efficiency services.” *

Beman also pointed out that, since 2000, Chevron Energy Solutions, a Chevron subsidiary that focuses on environmental issues, has developed hundreds of projects in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

“CES projects will help to reduce over a billion dollars in energy costs for customers,” Beman told The Washington Independent.

But a billion dollars spent over an unspecified period of time doesn’t exactly seem like a lot of money for a company that made a record $18.7 billion in profits last year alone.

Steve Kretzmann, director of the nonpartisan organization Oil Change International, said that Chevron’s priority is cleaning up its image — and that speaks volumes about its credibility on conservation. “Chevron spends millions and millions on these ad campaigns,” said Kretzmann, “and then doesn’t devote hardly any amount of money to invest in renewable-energy technologies that could make a huge difference.”

Chevron spent $15 million last year on advertising to promote it’s green policies, according to Grist. This seems to be the norm among the big oil companies.

Exxon, for example, spent only 1 percent of its record-breaking annual profit last year on alternative energy, reports ABC News.

www.willyoujoinus.com

But Chevron spokeswoman Beman says her company isn’t like the other oil companies. “We feel we differentiate ourselves from our competitors to say conservation is key to our [mission],” she said. “I think it’s just an overall call to action that all of us are responsible. Chevron is taking the lead in opening this discussion.”Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Adbusters Magazine, a non-profit that studies consumerism, finds this claim surprising. Until recently, he says, oil companies like Chevron have been “instrumental in delaying the debate we needed to have on climate change.”

“For years,” Lasn said, “[they were] trying to deny climate change and keep the business-as-usual scenario going.” James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, agrees with Lasn. In June, he testified before Congress:

Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.

“Then, just a few short years ago” Lasn said, “when it became quite obvious that they couldn’t deny climate change any longer, one by one they jumped on this [PR] bandwagon…and started painting themselves as the good guys.”

That’s why almost all big oil companies now have ads greenwashing themselves, Lasn said. It started with BP — originally British Petroleum — changing its logo in 2000 to a sun and referring to itself as “Beyond Petroleum.” BP talks about this global branding strategy on its website.

Now, even ExxonMobil — a company known to have given millions of dollars to groups denying global warming — has launched green ads.Are these costly PR campaigns working?

Lasn says they have potential. “A lot of people are totally hoodwinked by this,” he said. “There are millions of people out there who actually do fall for it, who are not aware of some of the history of these big oil companies.”

That’s what Chevron is counting on, Lasn says.

Green advertising can help companies shape their brand, says Lasn, because even large corporations care about public perception.

“[Oil companies] know the next time there is a financial crunch, like now, or if climate change veers out of control even more than it already has, then their survival depends on how the public perceives them,” he said.

TerraChoice, an environmental marketing firm that conducts advertising research, agrees that green advertising can be effective. Media consultant Kate Rusnak says consumers are happy to see so many businesses moving in a more sustainable direction. As a result, she said, “there has certainly been a huge rise in the amount of green advertising.” This could be why even oil companies are jumping on the bandwagon.

Still, not everyone says Chevron is winning on the public-perception front. “I don’t think that [this ad campaign] is particularly effective for consumers,” said Kretzmann of Oil Change International. “The industry knows it has an image problem.”

*Note: This article originally did not say how much Chevron spends on its alternative energy projects. A quote from the oil company detailing its projected budgets was added to the piece after posting.