Critics say this is just a small portion of industry donations behind Upton’s flip from a moderate Michigan Republican to an anti-regulation, hard-right legislator, now a member of the deficit-reduction supercommittee.

“The polluters have deep pockets and they have turned an innately conservative issue that is traditionally bipartisan into something polarizing,” Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, told The Michigan Messenger. “The correlation between Upton’s voting record and his increase in contributions from polluting industries is striking.”

Upton’s path — from having nearly 20 years of legislative service with no major committee assignments to the major positions he now embodies — is marked with campaign donations, fundraising trips and influential friends.

A moderate past

Upton, grandson of Whirlpool Corporation co-founder Frederick Upton, was raised in St. Joseph, Mich., known as the twin city to neighboring Benton Harbor across the river. He now represents the state’s 6th Congressional District, which stretches along the Michigan-Indiana border.

His reputation as a political figure was similarly even-handed; he “embodied balance,” said a recent Washington Post feature, and he was known for reaching across the aisle.

Following Barack Obama’s election, Upton said he hoped to work closely with Obama, and regularly met with Rahm Emanuel, the president’s first White House chief of staff. In fact, Emanuel told Upton “something to the effect of, ‘You’re the guy we’re going to be looking to’ ” to build coalitions with Republicans, according to the Kalamazoo Gazette.

His voting record also strayed from more doctrinaire GOP members — during the 110th Congress, he broke from the Republican line on floor votes more often than most House Republicans, and supported then-President George W. Bush less than half of the time,according to a voting analysis (PDF).

Particularly notable was his position on energy issues. “Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions,” said Upton in April 2009, and again in June 2009: “We have a unique opportunity and a responsibility to reduce emissions and preserve our economy – the American public is desperate for solutions, but a national energy tax is not the answer.”

In 2007, Upton was a major supporter of legislation to improve lighting efficiency as well as one of the few Republicans that, as recently as 2009 supported increased funding for a U.S. Department of Energy loan program that would help automakers build more efficient cars.

Turning a new leaf

It is on energy issues that Upton has made the most dramatic change. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed from December 2010 titled “How Congress Can Stop the EPA’s Power Grab,” Upton detailed his new objections to environmental regulation, warning against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs.”

He then went on to be the sponsor of the bill passed in the House that aims to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases; he flipped on his long-time support for energy efficient light bulbs (“There is no other explanation for why Fred Upton changed his mind on light bulbs then politics. It was an easy target,” says Taylor-Miesle); andpushed legislation to speed up the Keystone XL pipeline despite a recent oil spill near his district.

Money in the game

Upton was also accused by critics of asking the chairman of a major energy company a “softball question” during a congressional hearing. This may not have been particularly notable, except that this major energy company, DTE Energy, was also a major donor to Upton.

DTE Energy was the fourth-largest donor to Upton’s re-election campaign in 2010, giving him $20,400, and is his top contributor so far in the 2012 election cycle, according to Open Secrets. The company is currently being sued by the EPA for failing to install pollution controls on one of its major coal-fired power plants.

The energy and natural resources lobby is the 8th-largest donation industry, with more than 75 percent of its campaign donations going to Republican candidates, according to an analysis by Open Secrets. In the 2011-2012 fiscal year, it gave over $25 million.

According to Open Secrets, Upton has raised over $280,000 from the electrical utilities, oil and gas and energy industries for his campaign committee and Leadership PAC so far in the 2011-2012 campaign cycle. This is more than he raised in the 2009-2010 cycle ($278,500).

Seventy-two percent of his campaign contributions come from outside his district and 66 percent from outside his state, according to MapLight. As outside campaign contributions to Upton grow, so does his importance on the national stage, said Tyler Slocum, director of the non-profit lobbying group Public Citizen’s Energy project.

“There is no question that major fossil fuel producing companies are behind the [de-regulation] effort,” said Slocum, “and Upton has been all too eager to be a cheerleader for their effort.”

The Michigan congressman also receives money through his Team Republicans Utilizing Sensible Tactics Leadership PAC, which has raised more than $468,000 since the start of 2011. In the 2012 cycle, CMS Energy is the leading contributor to Trust PAC, giving $14,000 in individual and PAC donations.

Revolving door

Not all of Upton’s ties to the energy industry are available on his disclosure forms. Two former energy lobbyists work for his committee. His staff director Gary Andres most recently worked for the lobbying firm Dutko Worldwide, which caters to Aspect Energy LLC, Duke Energy Corp., PDVSA USA Inc. and NV Energy Inc., among others.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s general counsel, James Barnette, has a similar background. He most recently worked for the lobbying firm Steptoe and Johnson, whose clients include Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Rio Tinto London Ltd. and Weyerhaeuser. Prior to entering lobbying, he served on the Energy and Commerce Committee staff from 1995 to 2006.

Upton was also spotted in the front row of an American Petroleum Institute event highlighting the oil industry’s agenda for 2011, and has met with some of the top industry executives since his appointment as chairman of the committee.

Why the flip?

Upton is considered to be in a safe Republican district, so are campaign contributions the only reason for his move to the right? Bill Ballenger, a former state representative and senator, told The Michigan Indpendent, “the threat to Upton is not from a Democrat in a general election but from his right in a Republican primary.”

At a time when the GOP is catering to a more right-wing message, the challenge to Upton’s seat by the very conservative former state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk would have been “enough for any politician to be ‘scared straight,’” says Ballenger.

Taylor-Miesle, with the National Resources Defense Council Action Fund, sees Upton’s turn as politically expedient for him.

“I believe that Fred Upton is a smart member of Congress. He knows the science and economic case for protecting the environment and public health. Given his history, I don’t think that those fundamental beliefs have changed,” said Taylor-Miesle. “But he also knows that the Senate is probably not going to pass anything in its current climate. So he can appease his radical base with crazy legislation putting kids health at risk without a real likelihood of it ever happening.”

However, she says, that logic is not an excuse for the legislation he is supporting: “At the end of the day, however, anyway you dice it, he is endangering my family [and] your family.”

Eartha Melzer contributed to this report

The Second City is two weeks into its occupation of Wall Street, and on a warm Thursday afternoon about 200 people stood on the cross-streets between the Chicago Federal Reserve and the Chicago Trading Floor. Protesters held signs calling for passing drivers to “honk to prosecute banksters,” and a woman sitting on the curb held a sign saying “Keep your coins. I want change.”

“The more oppression you have the more people will fight,” said Kyle, 26, a freelance computer repairman and photographer who has gone to Occupy Chicago daily since it began.

Kyle, who asked that his last name not be used for fear of prosecution, said that what is particularly interesting about the occupation movement to him is the applicability of the fight against corporatism to many other movements.

“More so than anything else, I’m an environmentalist,” said Kyle, “and coal power, industrial agriculture, oil drilling are all part of the fact that our part of society, the 99%, is underrepresented.”

Community groups and unions in Chicago are also working to underline the similarities between Occupy Wall Street’s anger at the financial system and the local struggles they are fighting, many over resources in a city where political figures have used a $653.7 budget deficit to cut from the bottom, canceling a planned raise for teachers, cutting public workers salaries and closing mental health centers.

“We are interested in making sure that this isn’t a few teeny groups agendas but a public and democratic uprising,” said Adam Kader, Worker Center Director at Chicago’s ARISE Workers Center. “What is clear is that our communities are hurting and it’s because public funds have been taken away from people,” and this is the basis on which the movements will come together.

As the American Independent reported earlier Thursday many regional Occupy movements have marchhed on their regional federal reserve banks. Stephen Eisenman, a professor of Art History at Northwestern University who was down at the occupation for his first time, said he thinks the target is a good one.

“The Federal Reserve has been handing out cash in huge truckloads… at 1 percent interest,”  said Eisenman, whose credit card company charges him up to 17 percent for a late payment. “I support any movement that seeks to put controls on rampant capitalism and the right to demand that we reprioritize our goals.”

Along with being the headquarters of a number of major banks, including Harris Bank, Chicago has another financial quirk that moves money upwards — Tax Increment Financing.

Under Chicago’s Mayor Daley, TIF’s took tax money from one designated area and redirected it into another — in reality, this has meant taking about $500 million in tax dollars in the last four years that would have gone to schools or struggling communities, and instead spending it on projects like the remodeling the former Sears Tower.

This coming week, Chicago will also be hosting the Futures Industry Association and Mortgage Bankers Association expos. A coalition of community groups including the Chicago Teachers Union, ARISE Chicago and SEIU have organized Take Back Chicago, a week of action to protests “to begin taking back the jobs, homes, and schools we have lost to their greed.”

Occupy Chicago voted to take part in this week of action, and Catherine Murrell, communications coordinator for Stand Up! Chicago, a coalition of progressive community groups, says that the week of action is “a perfect fit with what Occupy Chicago is talking about.”

“Why are our communities being allowed to deteriorate,” asked Murrell, “while those who caused the recession are still seeing an upward flow of wealth?”

“It’s an honor to welcome Mayor Rahm Emanuel to the state for the Jefferson Jackson Dinner and to hear him speak to Iowa Democrats in support of President Obama,” said Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky.

“Mayor Emanuel has proven to be one of the great advocates for Democratic values and middle class opportunity throughout his service in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, as a leader in Congress, and now at the helm of the great city of Chicago.”

The dinner will take place Nov. 19 in Des Moines, exact time and location to be announced.

Emanual served Illinois 5th District from 2003 to 2009, when he resigned to join the Obama administration. He was also chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 mid-term elections, and continued to provide election strategy throughout the 2008 election cycle. He was elected as chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. House while it was under Democratic control, making him at that time the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the nation.

He was elected mayor of Chicago in February, earning 55 percent of the electorate, and was sworn into office in May. William M. Daley, the brother of former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, was subsequently named to Emanuel’s former chief of staff role.

“As we approach the first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucuses, announcements like this will continue to bring Democrats together and build the organization we need to win in 2012,” added Dvorsky.

Tuesday’s announcement follows the party’s launch earlier this month of TheCaucuses.com, the party’s official website for the Iowa Democratic Caucuses.

Republicans and Democrats caucus separately, and currently incumbent President Obama faces no serious primary challenge. For Democrats, the caucuses will likely serve as an affirmation of their support for Obama and several items of political housekeeping that will impact the county and district parties as they move forward toward election day.

Emanuel, a former congressman for part of Chicago, served as President Obama’s chief of staff until he resigned the position in October after current Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said that he would not seek another term in office. During his stint in the White House, Emanuel maintained ownership of his Chicago home, but had been renting the unit while he resided full time in Washington, D.C. Emanuel and his attorneys attempted to argue that he maintained his residency since he was serving duty in Washington at the president’s request, but the appellate court dismissed that argument Monday. The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

Burt Odelson, the attorney who led the charge to throw Emanuel off the ballot, said the appellate court appears to have adopted all of his arguments that the state municipal code requires candidates for mayor in Illinois to reside within the town in which they’re running for a year prior to Election Day.

Emanuel was successful in hearings before two lower courts, so his standing on the ballot is not yet finalized. An appeal from his campaign to the Illinois Supreme Court is likely. The Democratic primary (which essentially chooses the eventual winner in the left-leaning city) is set for Feb. 22. Emanuel was on the path to an easy victory before this judicial setback, with a Chicago Tribune poll last week putting him ahead of former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun by a 44-21 percent margin.

Read the court’s full decision here (PDF).

He says:

Democrats connected with the White House say that Carol Browner, currently, the president’s senior adviser on energy and the environment, and the former EPA secretary under President Clinton, is a plausible candidate to be appointed White House chief of staff next year.

Ambinder offers a number of reasons why Obama might choose Browner. “She has more than enough experience dealing with Congress, with the rest of the government, and is a subject matter expert on the subject that will occupy a considerable amount of the President’s attention in the next two years,” he notes. In addition, he says she “supervised the response to the BP oil well spill, and the President is said to think that she did a terrific job with the limited sets of tools the government turned out to have.”

But he doesn’t address a couple of reasons why Obama would pass over Browner for the position. While she has been praised for her work on the oil spill response, she mischaracterized a key administration report on the amount of oil left in the Gulf after the spill.

A draft staff report on the administration’s oil spill response named Browner specifically in its criticism of the report, known as the “Oil Budget.”

Ms. Browner did not describe the Oil Budget as an operational tool designed to assist responders. Instead, some of her statements presented the budget as a scientific assessment of how much of the oil was “gone.” [...]

In addition, Ms. Browner and [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator Jane Lubchenco] emphasized that the report was “peer-review[ed]” by federal and non-federal scientists. These references to peer review by two senior officials in a White House press briefing likely contributed to public perception of the budget?s findings as more exact and complete than the budget, as an operational tool, was designed to be.

At the same time, she is deeply unpopular with many Republicans, who have targeted her in their criticism of the administration’s so-called policy “czars,” key advisers who require no Senate confirmation.

Many members of the pro-immigration reform community have said they hoped Gutierrez would remain in Washington, where he has pushed for comprehensive immigration reform as well as smaller bills such as the DREAM Act and measures to expand legalization options for some undocumented young people and foreign-born partners of gay and lesbian U.S. citizens.

In Chicago, though, Latino groups said they hoped to see Gutierrez run against former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, whom Gutierrez has criticized for failing to deliver comprehensive immigration reform during his time in the White House.

Gutierrez’s office confirmed the congressman will not run for mayor, but has not yet provided his official statement.

Update: Here is Gutierrez’s statement on his decision not to run for mayor:

When I make important decisions I try to think about Roberto Clemente.

Roberto Clemente had everything. A great career. A rifle arm. A big contract. Fans who adored him.

And yet, he risked it all to help others. He made a decision that was entirely unselfish. A decision about the greater good of his people. He took on the dictator of Nicaragua, got on a small plane, overloaded with relief supplies, flew into a storm – and gave his life for others.

I’m not here to compare myself to Clemente. Not at all. Few people will ever earn that comparison. But I am here to say that as I think about making a decision like running for Mayor of Chicago, I try to learn by his example.

And the example he set was this: when you make a decision, do it based on what is best for your people.

I love the City of Chicago. I would love to be Mayor of the city of Chicago, and I believe I could do great things for people. For Latinos, for African-Americans, for immigrants, for gays and lesbians, for every person in Chicago wants a better future for themselves and their families.

I believe I could make a difference.

And I believe our campaign is in very strong shape. We have lots of funding, and commitments for more. We have plenty of signatures on petitions. We have enthusiasm and support and volunteers. We have a poll that says we are in a very strong position and that the Latino community in particular would rally to my candidacy.

It’s an exciting and important opportunity.

And so I have weighed that excitement and that opportunity and that possibility alongside of my current opportunity. And my current obligation.

I’m honored to serve in Congress. My constituents have sent me back many times. I take their trust seriously. I’m humbled by it.

And across this nation, immigrants are counting on me too. The people I’ve talked about today in detail. The people I’ve met in Jersey City and Tampa, in El Paso and San Jose, in Cleveland and Phoenix.

Today, our immigrant community is under attack – but we’re fighting back. And I am fortunate enough to be on the frontlines of the battle. Fortunate to stand up for families that are being torn apart and moms and dads who are being deported. To have a direct line to the President of the United States to say “you have to do more.” To go to Phoenix to say “what you are doing here in unjust and must be stopped.” To walk the streets of Pilsen and Little Village and give people hope. To debate anti-immigrant leaders wherever we find them – from the ballot box to the television talk shows.

It’s a tough time for those of us who believe in fairness for immigrants. But history is not written by those who give up.

And history is not written by those who change battles in the middle of the fight.

Today I tell you that I have an obligation to all of my constituents and all of the immigrant families I have met and learned from across this country. I have an obligation to not give up the fight for fairness, for justice and for finally passing comprehensive immigration reform.

I have an obligation not to give up on the fight I’ve already begun.

I have unfinished business to complete.

So I will not be a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago.

This is an extremely difficult decision, and I thank with all my heart the people who have been working so hard and supporting my candidacy.

But it is a decision I make knowing it is the right thing to do. There is one and only one reason I am not running — I’m already engaged in the most important battle I can commit my energy and time and devotion to winning. I am one-hundred percent committed to fighting for fairness and justice for immigrants, and to continue the battle for comprehensive immigration reform.

Standing up for immigrants, and finishing this battle, and winning this fight is far more important than whatever personal disappointment I might feel in not making the race for Mayor of the city of Chicago.

I love Chicago. I’ve reached out to other candidates today to tell them I’m not running and to wish them well. I will be engaged in this race and will still be a voice for fairness for all of the people of Chicago. For jobs. For better schools. For safe streets.

But I will be that voice while I continue my obligations as Congressman and my crusade for comprehensive immigration reform.

I know today – that even though I believe we would have mounted a great campaign, an important campaign, a winning campaign – this is the right decision for the people I represent and for people who count on me.

So I thank you. Today is not the end of a fight – it’s the continuation of a struggle for justice – and I invite all of you to join me in this very important crusade. Because with all of you – together – we will win.

Thank you very much.

As of now, the Sun-Times reports he is still unsure whether he should stay in Congress or run to replace longtime Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. If he runs, it could be a loss for national immigration reform advocates: Gutierrez backs a number of immigration-related measures, such as the DREAM Act for undocumented students and military service members and the Uniting American Families Act to allow gay and lesbian citizens to petition for legal status for their foreign-born partners.

Here are the poll results (emphasis mine):

In a horse-race matchup, the front-runner in the Gutierrez poll is former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at 27 percent to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, 19 percent; former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.), 9 percent; Gutierrez, 8 percent; Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), 6 percent, state Sen. James Meeks, 5 percent; City Clerk Miguel del Valle, 3 percent; Ald. Bob Fioretti, 2 percent and Chicago City Colleges Board chief Gery Chico, 2 percent.

The election is expected to take place in two parts: One general election, then a runoff with the two leading candidates.

Gutierrez has made immigration reform one of his central issues, and it will likely play a role whether or not he runs for the office. Supporters of immigration reform, particularly those in Washington, have said his candidacy could hurt the prospects for immigration reform in Congress. On the other hand, Latino and pro-immigration reform groups in Chicago have said they would favor Gutierrez over Emanuel, who failed to deliver comprehensive immigration reform during his time in the White House.

“The immigrant communities do not want Rahm Emanuel to come home without immigration reform,” Joshua Hoyt, executive director, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said in September. “The Latino communities will be behind [Rep. Luis] Gutierrez.”

Emanuel is going to need friends in Chicago as he explores a mayoral bid. What better place to start than those who you got into the White House? Some of Emanuel’s visitors are big Chicago businessmen, lobbyists and politicians.

These Chicago players include business leaders Sam Zell, The Tribune Company, John Rowe, Exelon, Leo Melamed, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Thomas Lanctot, William Blair & Company, Howard Gottlieb and Patrick Cermak, Wight & Company.

Those in the political realm include Bill Daley, former Commerce Secretary and brother to current Mayor Richard Daley, John Cullerton, President of the Illinois State Senate, Sheila Gutman, major Democratic donor and Emanuel’s own former staffer John Borovicka, now with William & Blair.

How these contacts play out practically, if at all, remains to be determined. In light of earlier reports about News Corp.’s million dollar donation to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, it’s also worth noting a rather unlikely White House visit Blumenthal uncovered from one “Keith R. Murdoch”:

One meeting that appears in the White House visitor logs that may seem unexpected is a June 9, 2010 meeting with one Keith R. Murdoch. Does the “R” stand for Rupert? In his book The Promise Jonathan Alter revealed that Emanuel kept a back channel open to NewsCorp owner Rupert Murdoch, who’s real name is Keith Rupert Murdoch. I have not yet confirmed whether this is actually Rupert Murdoch, but I will let you know when I do.

Just one more reason for the liberal wing of the Democratic party to be thrilled by Rahm’s departure.

The Washington Post, for one, has a lengthy profile that sets up a marked contrast, no doubt aided by a White House looking to present a noticeable sign of change, between the hard charging Emanuel and the conciliatory, “ego-free” Rouse:

Few people outside Washington, and not many inside, have heard the name Pete Rouse. The man President Obama will name as his interim White House chief of staff on Friday is a quiet political player who avoids the spotlight. He does not suit up for the Sunday talk shows; there are no stories about him reducing staff members to tears for their slip-ups.

He is in many ways the opposite of Rahm Emanuel, the brash chief of staff he will replace.

While Emanuel spent nearly two years as a prominent public face of the Obama administration, Rouse sat just around the corner in the West Wing, fixing problems. A trusted adviser dating back to Obama’s first days in the Senate, Rouse helped guide Obama’s Washington rise. Obama once described Rouse as “completely ego-free.”

But the Post’s own Ezra Klein notes, in fact, that lots of people in Washington have heard of Mr. Rouse. Quoting from an old profile he helped author, Klein writes:

Often called “the 101st Senator,” Rouse, an understated 62-year-old with 30-odd years of Capitol Hill experience, had been Tom Daschle’s powerful chief of staff. When Daschle was ejected from the Senate, he hoped Rouse would continue to work with him in the private sector. But Rouse received an expected call from Cassandra Butts, the policy director on Dick Gephardt’s 2004 presidential campaign and an old law school chum of Obama’s. Butts asked Rouse to meet with the newly elected Obama. Grudgingly, Rouse had lunch with the young senator. Obama asked him to sign on as chief of staff–a demotion of sorts, dropping Rouse from the office of the most powerful Senate Democrat to that of the most junior member of the body. Rouse politely declined. Obama kept asking. Eventually, Rouse accepted.

All of which seems to indicate that while he may not plan to bash as many heads as Rahm, his approach to dealing with Congress will likely be quite similar:

The Obama administration has often been criticized for adopting an overly deferential approach to Congress, but it’s staffed by longtime congressional hands who strongly believe that this is the right approach to take to Congress if you actually want to get anything done in it. Rouse’s ascension suggests that little is likely to change in that regard.

At least one attorney believes a law could prevent Emanuel from being a candidate. Emanuel still owns a house in the city, but that’s not enough according to Burt Odelson, who has spent 38 years practicing election law.

Odelson says an 1871 state law requires candidates to live in their jurisdiction for one year before the election.

It seems unlikely that Rahm — who’s not shy about his ambitions to become mayor — hasn’t done his due diligence in this respect and that his house in Chicago isn’t sufficient to qualify him for residency. But Odelson’s 38 years practicing election law outnumber mine and Rahm’s combined, so I’ll reserve judgment for now.