The Capital & Main website, a leftist (what else?) California outfit that long has advocated for “living wages” and “community benefits agreements” on development projects, is making a big to-do over an environmental group’s calling out of five Pennsylvania lobbying groups for representing both those on its side of the anti-fossil fuel crowd and fossil fuel interests.
And it slams Pittsburgh in the process.
“Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney is one of five powerful lobbying firms across the state named in a recent report by environmental research and advocacy organization F-Minus that found that Pittsburgh — more than any other big U.S. city — is entangled in ‘the most “extreme embrace”’ of fossil fuel lobbyists,” writes Audrey Carleton.
“The five firms identified are retained by oil and gas companies, environmentally minded groups as well as city government — a dual-loyalty situation that threatens to undermine local climate goals and the state’s progress on its greenhouse gas reduction goals, according to the report,” she says.
Among other firms that supposedly represent conflicting interests on climate is Malady & Wooten, Long Nyquist & Associates, Allegheny Strategy Partners and One+ Strategies.
Again, their “conflicts”? Representing clients on either side of the “climate change” debate.
“These lobbyists pose a problem for climate-related causes and the environmental groups that employ them, argues report author James Browning, founder of F-Minus,” Capital & Main’s Carleton continues.
“While it’s theoretically possible that an individual lobbyist might be able to compartmentalize work between clients, he believes it’s unavoidable that one with deeper pockets wouldn’t hold more sway,” she writes.
“Fossil fuel companies have far more money and clout and gravity and so the magnets are always going to move in their direction,” report author Browning claims.
It’s a dubious claim, given lobbying firms, often arms of law firms, have a sacred professional code of conduct to faithfully represent those who retain their services, do they not?
But the real nub of the rub of this Capital & Main report on F-Minus’ “findings” comes at the very end:
“Browning sees his research as serving a … divestment call — urging environmental groups and public institutions to stop funding fossil fuel lobbyists.
“’It’s a call to action,” he says. ‘Cut ties with lobbyists who represent fossil fuel companies.’”
That is, cancel those who might have the temerity to represent those with whom you disagree. It’s no different than cancel-culture groups that have demanded banks stop lending to those that “social justice” third parties have deemed to be a “danger” to society, arbitrarily decreeing that perfectly legal businesses should have no access to lent capital.
But that is the respective lending institutions’ decision, not wild-eyed ecocratic or other extremists.
The same applies for those who hire experts to petition their government on behalf of their respective causes – even if the same company has lobbyists representing the concerns of those on the opposite side of any issue.
So, instead of excoriating Pittsburgh supposed “lobbyist extremism,” both F-Minus and Capital & Main should be lauding the Pittsburgh lobbying community for its lobbying diversity and inclusion.
Right?
You may chuckle at will.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
