Former hedge fund manager-turned-climate-activist Tom Steyer’s vow that his NextGen Climate Action super PAC would spend $100 million this year could catapult the environmental movement into money-in-politics player status, if he follows through.

And there’s no reason to think he won’t. Last year, Steyer played a significant role in two major elections, spending more than $8 million to help elect Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and more than $1 million in the Massachusetts special election to replace then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

About $529,000 went to support now-Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) or oppose his rival, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), in the primary. Markey co-authored a bill to create a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions; it passed the House in 2009. Lynch is a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico if it’s approved by the Obama administration. (Steyer is doing his best to nix it.)

In the general election, Steyer’s group spent another $414,000 attacking Republican candidate Gabriel Gomez. It also contributed $500,000 to the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, which spent nearly $544,000 combined on the election supporting Markey and opposing Gomez. In an election where Markey spent about $12 million and Gomez $4 million, Steyer’s money was significant.

Steyer is expected to play an even bigger role in the 2014 elections. According to a report from the Center for Public Integrity, Steyer gave more to super PACs last year than any other donor — $11.1 million, with all of that money going to fund his CE Action Committee and NextGen Climate Action Committee. This year’s projected $100 million — Steyer said he would contribute half of it himself and raise the rest — could have an even bigger impact and put the environmental movement on the map in campaign finance terms.

Environmental organizations gave only about $742,000 to congressional candidates in the 2012 election cycle, almost wholly benefiting Democrats. By comparison, companies and trade groups in the energy and natural resources industry gave about $77.2 million, mostly to Republicans.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

More significantly, the outside spending groups of environmental organizations laid out a combined $20 million or more in the 2012 cycle, including more than $14 million by the League of Conservation Voters. Environment America spent about $1.5 million and the Sierra Club rounded out the three top spenders with roughly $1.2 million.

Still, all the environmental outside money from 2012 comes to around one-fifth of what Steyer proposes to inject into the process. Not all of his funds will be spend at the federal level, but they could help smooth out a sharply unlevel playing field.

And who couldn’t use a hedge fund billionaire for a sugar daddy?

Follow Robbie on Twitter at @robbiefeinberg

Image: Tom Steyer at Millenium Awards in June 2013 (Flickr/Global Green USA)



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜