(Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Amid rising concerns about climate change and extensive rollbacks of environmental regulations under President Donald Trump’s administration, environmental groups are stepping up their advocacy game.

Last year, a slew of high-profile groups saw steep increase in their annual revenue, tax records show. They in turn invested heavily in pushing for pro-environment policies and electing like-minded candidates.

The efforts came at a point when climate change helped shape the nation’s political climate. As environmental groups criticize the oil and gas industry as large polluters, Democratic presidential hopefuls are rejecting contributions from fossil fuel executives. The pledge stands in sheer contrast with the Trump administration, which scaled back federal oversight on environmental protections.

Trump announced in 2017 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement, which was officialized last month. His administration this year repealed Obama-era water quality regulations, cut back requirements on energy-efficient light bulbs, and further scaled back rules on drilling, air pollution and toxic substances. Last week, the president urged the EPA to review water efficiency standards, claiming that some Americans have difficulty washing their hands or flushing when using low-flow sinks and toilets.

League of Conservation Voters, a national environmental “dark money” group with an allied super PAC and affiliated nonprofit arms across the states, is pushing back against the loosened oversight while pouring money into state and federal elections. The group stated in its tax returns that it seeks to “elect pro-environmental candidates” and “defeat those who stand in the way.” As a 501(c)(4) group, League of Conservation Voters is not required by law to disclose the identities of its contributors, leaving its donor network largely unknown. Transparency group Issue One cross-referenced OpenSecrets data with other resources to identify 33 donors that gave to the league in previous years.

The group hauled in $65.2 million last year, almost doubling the $32.7 million it brought in the year before. It received a handful of multimillion-dollar contributions, including $13.2 million from a single source. It also brought in $8 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a liberal “dark money” group that shelled out $141 million last year and sponsored multimillion-dollar ad campaigns that targeted Republican candidates.

David Willett, spokesperson for the group, said the revenue growth was due to growing concerns about climate change, the need to defend environmental regulations that are cut back under the current administration and successful advocacy for clean energy at the state level.

The league gave out $46.3 million worth of grants last year, more than four times the $10 million it disbursed the year before. The grants were split among 73 groups including the organization’s state affiliates and political arms, some of which poured seven figures into influencing federal and state elections.

Willett said not all $46.3 million went to political activities, as many grants were made “for education, advocacy, capacity building and other non-electoral activities.”

The group gave $2.6 million to New American Jobs Fund, a joint project between the group’s super PAC and the United Steelworkers union. The fund spent $7.7 million on independent expenditures during last year’s midterms, targeting several Republican congressional candidates and mobilizing voters in key states to elect Democrats such as Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

Conservation Voters of Michigan PAC, a state-level super PAC connected to the group’s Michigan branch, received $2.8 million from the group last year. The super PAC spent $2 million helping Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer win the 2018 gubernatorial race, portraying her in ads as a fighter against polluters during the Flint water crisis.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund, the group’s main super PAC, pulled in $28.9 million in 2018, including $5 million from 2020 presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg and $3.5 million from the nonprofit arm. The super PAC, along with its affiliates, announced $80 million in spending ahead of the 2018 midterms, with $16.2 million going to independent expenditures in federal races.

Ahead of 2020, the League of Conservation Voters continues to funnel money to its state arms challenging sitting Congress members over environmental issues. Conservation Colorado, its affiliate in the Centennial State, received $1.8 million from the group last year, more than its entire 2017 revenue.

The Colorado group made a seven-figure ad buy this year accusing Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) for taking contributions from the oil and gas industry and working against air cleanup in Colorado. The incumbent Republican, faced with a crowded field of challengers including former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, is up for a hotly-contested race in 2020.

“Gardner went to Washington and helped dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to combat air pollution,” one ad said.

Also eyeing that Colorado Senate race is the Sierra Club, one of the nation’s largest environmental groups with multiple appendages that do not fully disclose donors. The group spent $13,824 setting up five billboards in Colorado last month and $150,000 buying TV ads this week, urging Gardner to fully fund a conservation fund he introduced in Congress. It also ran digital ads accusing Trump and five senators — all of whom are up for reelection in 2020 — of denying climate change and failing to support clean energy.

Sierra Club brought in a record-breaking $143.7 million last year, including $71.9 million from a single donor. By comparison, it only gave out $2 million in grants to environmental groups and other advocacy groups in California, Puerto Rico, among others. It gave $30,000 to League of Conservation Voters.

Since May 2018, the group has spent at least $4.1 million running Facebook ads, some of which targeted the Trump administration for rolling back environmental regulations. Last August, the group announced a five-figure ad campaign against Trump for his plan to subsidize ailing coal and nuclear plants, which was put on hold earlier this year amid opposition from the president’s own advisors.

Environment America, a Colorado-based environmental group, joined Sierra Club in opposing the plan, calling it an action to “defy the facts to appease the polluter lobby.” As the Trump administration works to cut back water pollution regulations, the group urged the EPA last month to tighten the regulations on agricultural facilities dumping waste into waterways.

The Colorado group brought in a record $18.2 million during fiscal year 2018 and gave out $7.5 million in grants and contributions in the same period. Environment America also gave $50,000 each last year to Our Colorado Values and Coloradoans for Fairness, both of which are state-level political groups supporting Democratic candidates in state races. The groups both received large contributions from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, The Colorado Independent reported.

Taking $1.8 million from the League of Conservation Voters last year, the group delivered a total of $11.8 million to its super PAC Environment America Action Fund last year, which in turn doled out $10 million to the political arms of League of Conservation Voters.

The super PAC, which hauled in $16.7 million last year, spent $791,455 on independent expenditures last year to help elect Democrats to Congress. It spent $49,885 on Facebook ads supporting Democrats and targeting Republican candidates, attacking Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) for voting against the water protection rules 2017 and former Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) for supporting subsidizing oil and gas companies. It also bought ads to support Democratic candidate Dan McCready, who lost to his Republican opponent Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) in the costly September election.



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 ➜