Cash-Drilled: The Marcellus Shale Flows With Campaign Dollars
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
17 May 2010
The Marcellus shale is more than a rich source of natural gas. It's a
rich source of campaign contributions, further evidence of the sort of
free-wheeling ways that cast a suspicious shadow over Pennsylvania's
politicians.
To hear many state lawmakers tell it, the gas drilling industry is in
such a delicate stage of its development in Pennsylvania that even a
hint of taxing the extractions from deep underground could kill it.
That's hard to believe, given how much money the industry has been
willing to pump into state election campaigns.
Prior to the 2002 gubernatorial election, there was little interest in
tapping the deposits trapped deep underground and there wasn't much
interest on the part of drillers in the candidates running for office
in the state either, according to a report compiled by the public
advocacy group Common Cause. Once new technology was developed that
made extracting the gas easier and cheaper, though, the money started
pouring in. Where in 2002 Democratic candidate Ed Rendell received
$10,000 and Republican Mike Fisher got $98,000 from the industry, so
far this year Republican Tom Corbett has received $284,000 and
Democrats Dan Onorato got $59,000, and Jack Wagner, $9,000.
Between 2001 and March of this year, the natural gas industry gave
$2.85 million to Pennsylvania political candidates. The contributions
have tripled in the last three years, from $579,000 in 2007 to $1.7
million in 2009, with the biggest giver the CEO of S.W. Jack Drilling,
a privately held company based in Indiana, Pa.
Common Cause rightly concluded that Pennsylvania is a particularly
sweet spot for future drilling prospects because of its weak campaign
finance laws, which impose no limits on individual or PAC contributions
to candidates for state offices.
These latest statistics provide yet another good argument for limits, a
state campaign finance database that makes it easy for citizens to
determine where candidates got their money, and more frequent
disclosure requirements during election years so voters don't have to
wait so long -- in some cases until after an election has been held --
to get the pertinent details.