“Blackfish,” a favorite contender on the Academy’s shortlist for Best Documentary Feature, has already made a splash with critics. The film has also stirred a serious debate over cooping up large and emotionally sophisticated animals like killer whales at theme parks. “Blackfish” chronicles the history of aggression between captive orcas and their human trainers, including the February 2010 mauling and death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau.

SeaWorld has vigorously denied the movie’s portrayal of it as disregarding the safety of its trainers — even though, unbeknownst to park employees, the whale that drowned Brancheau had a violent history, having attacked and killed another trainer twenty years earlier. Following the money may shed some light on “Blackfish.”

Lobbyists for SeaWorld have pushed for changes on two key issues – workplace safety and the accessibility of marine wildlife permits. In 2010, the year of Brancheau’s death, SeaWorld spent $1,320,000 on 11 lobbyists , who mostly targeted Congress, reports indicate. That year, perhaps unsurprisingly, SeaWorld — which had been acquired by the Blackstone Group , a private equity and investment firm, in late 2009 for $2.5 billion — lobbied on both consumer product safety rules and labor regulations. Specifically, SeaWorld lobbyists sought the ear of lawmakers on H.R. 2514, the “National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act of 2009.” The bill sought to expand the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission beyond traveling fairs to include stationary parks like SeaWorld, and allocate an extra $500,000 to the agency. Lobbyists are not required to indicate on reports whether their client supports or opposes a bill, but it appears SeaWorld might have hoped to skirt CPSC scrutiny.

Brancheau’s death had already caught the attention of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which cited SeaWorld for three serious safety violations and fined the company $75,000. The Department of Labor , which houses OSHA, was among the agencies lobbied that year.

Seven of SeaWorld’s lobbying reports in 2010 expressly mentioned the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which “generally prohibits ‘take’ of marine mammals in U.S. waters by any person and by U.S. citizens in international waters,” according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website . The National Marine Fisheries Service makes certain exceptions, and SeaWorld has long justified its imports by virtue of the educational value of its show. That justification received renewed scrutiny in 2010.

In 2011, all but one of the 10 lobbying reports focusing on animal issues filed that year expressly mentioned the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act, specifically, “the issuance of scientific research, enhancement and public display permits.” Twelve reports on animal lobbying in 2012 and nine reports in 2013 parrot the same wording, couching changes to marine permits as an issue of “amusement park and waterpark safety.” Blackstone’s SeaWorld subsidiary spent $460,000 on lobbying in 2013 , $980,000 in 2012 and $1,320,000 in 2011

The year after Brancheau’s death, SeaWorld started a PAC. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, it gave away just over $50,000 — including $5,000 to the leadership PAC of Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety. In the first three-quarters of 2013 it donated about $23,000 to committees and a handful of candidates, both Democrats and Republicans.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

Follow Emily on Twitter: @emilyakopp

Images: Creative Commons/Milian Boers



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 ➜