Some California Democrats want to stop taking fossil fuel money. Others say not so fast

California Democrats went to Glasgow this week to show off the trend-setting climate policies they adopted in the last year and a half, including phasing out the sale of gas powered cars and even lawn mowers.

They say those dramatic policies are necessary because of the imminent threat of climate change, which is manifesting in their state as massive wildfires and torrential weather.

But even as they call for the international community end its reliance on oil, some Democrats are not ready to give up fossil fuel contributions to their own campaigns.

The California Democratic Party faces pressure from more its more liberal members to stop accepting contributions from fossil fuel organizations and law enforcement groups. Activists had hoped to hold a vote on the contributions at a recent meeting, but the issue was deferred to a subcommittee for another four months of study.

It was not the outcome many had hoped for.

“We were flabbergasted,” said RL Miller, a former chair of the party’s Environmental Caucus and founder of Climate Hawks Vote. “Steamrollered.”

The decision to delay a vote on what some members have called “dirty money” sparked outrage from Miller and others who say the party shouldn’t accept funds from groups they say harm the environment or represent law enforcement.

Some Democrats, however, argue that the party shouldn’t get picky about money ahead of an important election cycle. Fossil fuel companies are also major employers in some Democrat-held counties, like Kern and Contra Costa.

The dispute not only highlights the rift between Democratic party leadership and its more liberal members, but raises questions about why, in blue California, Democrats are still taking money from groups that, at times, seem at odds with their stated positions.

“People want to win elections, and the way you win elections is, in large part, fundraising,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “The calculation is basically, ‘are we going to win more votes by saying no more fossil fuel money? Or will we win more votes by trying to kind of delay it?’”

Fossil fuel, law enforcement donations

The California Democratic Party raises tens of millions of dollars each year. In the 2019-2020 election cycle, the party raised more than $47 million, state records show. About $2.3 million, less than 5%, came from the law enforcement and fossil fuel organizations activists are targeting.

That’s not as much as groups like the California Teachers Association or SEIU Local 1000, which in the same cycle donated totals of $3.58 million and $1.38 million, respectively.

The state party already doesn’t accept money from the seven so-called “big oil” companies like ExxonMobil or Chevron, a party spokesperson said.

But activists want to go further, ending contributions from all fossil fuel organizations, California-based investor-owned utilities and fossil fuel industry executives.

Members of the party’s environmental, Black, and progressive Caucuses say it shouldn’t take money from groups they argue are hurting Californians.

“In the context of a state that routinely has communities burned down, where folks die because they’re unable to escape fires, where our beaches are polluted by oil, where our air is polluted with toxins... it’s imperative for the party to lead and take action to decrease human suffering and stop the needless incarceration of our siblings,” said Progressive Caucus Chair Amar Shergill

Still, some Democrats say it’s foolish to reject donations that could help win campaigns.

“At the end of the day, the goal is to get legislation passed,” said Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio. “The hurdle to that is not Democrats, it’s Republicans. And if we shoot ourselves in the foot by not having enough money to defeat Republicans, then we’re hurting our efforts to pass aggressive climate laws.”

Party leaders, like Secretary Melahat Rafiei, argued at the party’s recent meeting that the delay would allow more voices to join the discussion.

“You’re not the voice of everybody,” Rafiei said. “There are lots of delegates who want to be involved in this...I’m pretty sure the board’s going to vote to stop this money, so why can’t we have an inclusive plan?”

Party Controller April Verrett, who will lead the subcommittee, said the deferral isn’t about “power plays.”

“Let me do the job you elected me to do,” she told members. “Trust me to live my truth, trust me to put the interest of Black lives and brown lives and marginalized lives first.”

But party activists felt the study was another way to kick the issue down the road. This is not the first time members had urged leadership to ditch fossil fuel and law enforcement money — last year, two separate committees recommended Democrats stop accepting the contributions.

“We have already had more than enough process,” Igor Tregub, chair of the Environmental Caucus, said following the meeting. “I wish with every part of my soul that we had taken a strong position on both of these existential matters.”

Democratic party platform

The state party’s platform includes commitments to the environment, civil justice, and “a criminal justice system that provides fair and equitable treatment for all.”

“Climate change presents an existential threat to the future of humanity,” the platform preamble reads.

California Democrats have made efforts in recent years to wind down the oil and gas industry in the name of climate change, but activists say it’s just nibbling around the edges of what needs to be done. Tregub pointed to this year’s Senate Bill 467, which would have created setbacks for oil and fracking. It failed in a Democrat-controlled committee.

The same thing happened to Assembly Bill 1395, which would have made it the policy of the state to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions and reduce anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions by at least 90% below the 1990 level by no later than 2045.

“California used to be a leader on these issues. It isn’t anymore,” Shergill said. “And a large part of that is because of the money we take from these industries.”

But some Democrats, like consultant Andrew Acosta, worry that rejecting money from certain interests is a “slippery slope.”

“I think if you start drawing the line at every special interest, where do you end?” he said. “I’m not saying that activists shouldn’t have those conversations. I’m just saying from a political standpoint... you try to have the most resources you can to fight the Republican.”

Fossil fuel companies also create well-paid jobs in California. Last year, when Newsom announced a ban on gas cars by 2035, he was praised by environmentalists, but others were wary about the effect on labor.

“We can hate on oil, but the truth is our refinery jobs are really good middle-class jobs,” Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, tweeted after the announcement. “Jobs can’t be an afterthought to any climate change legislation.”

Party Chair Rusty Hicks has a long history with labor, and previously served as president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which represents workers in more than 300 unions.

The subcommittee on party finance will meet for 120 days before presenting a recommendation to the party in the spring, at which point executive members will again have a chance to vote.

But some members of the party say they’re discouraged by what they see now as a routine effort to avoid serious action on climate change.

“The delay now has become so pervasive, so routine and so fueled by dirty money, that it’s impossible to characterize this delay as anything other than climate denial,” Shergill said.

This story was originally published November 2, 2021 at 5:00 AM.