Trump’s Sleazy $1 Billion Shakedown of Oil Execs

[aubiefifty 17,100]

Trump’s Sleazy $1 Billion Shakedown of Oil Execs Gives Dems an Opening

Greg Sargent

Sat, May 11, 2024 at 5:00 AM CDT·6 min read

407

Ever since Donald Trump descended that golden escalator in 2015, a central tenet of his bond with his supporters has been a simple promise to them: I have seen elite corruption and self-dealing from the inside, and I will put that know-how to work for you.

During that campaign, for instance, Trump could boast that not paying taxes “makes me smart,” knowing supporters would hear it in exactly those terms. More recently he has told the MAGA masses that in facing multiple criminal prosecutions, “I am being indicted for you,” as if he’s bravely journeying into the belly of the corrupt system mainly to expose how it’s victimized them.

A new Washington Post report that Trump made explicit policy promises to a roomful of Big Oil executives—while urging them to raise $1 billion for his campaign—is a powerful story in part because it wrecks what’s left of that mystique. In case you didn’t already know this, it shows yet again that if Trump has employed that aforementioned knowledge of elite corruption and self-dealing to any ends in his public career, it’s chiefly to benefit himself.

That counter narrative is a story that Democrats have a big opportunity to tell—if they seize on this news effectively. How might they do that?

For starters, the revelations seem to cry out for more scrutiny from Congress. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who has been presiding over hearings into the oil industry as chair of the Budget Committee, says it’s “highly likely” that the committee will examine the new revelations.

“This is practically an invitation to ask more questions,” Whitehouse told me, describing this as a “natural extension of the investigation already underway.”

There’s plenty to explore. As the Post reports, an oil company executive at the gathering, held at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort last month, complained about environmental regulations under the Biden administration. Then this happened:

Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people.

Obviously industries have long donated to politicians in both parties in hopes of governance that takes their interests into account, and they explicitly lobby for this as well. But in this case, Trump may have made detailed, concrete promises while simultaneously soliciting a precise amount in campaign contributions.

For instance, the Post reports, Trump vowed to scrap Biden’s ban on permits for new liquefied natural gas experts “on the first day.” He also promised to overturn new tailpipe emission limits designed to encourage the transition to electric vehicles, and he dangled more leases for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, “a priority that several of the executives raised.”

“The phrase that instantly came to mind as I was reading the story was ‘quid pro quo,’” Whitehouse told me. He also pointed to a new Politico report that oil industry officials are drawing up executive orders for Trump to sign as president. “Put those things together and it starts to look mighty damn corrupt,” Whitehouse said.

So what would be the legislative aim of a congressional inquiry into all this, and what might it look like? One argument is that knowing what transpired between those executives and Trump could inform an analysis of what’s wrong with our campaign finance laws—and how to fix them, says Noah Bookbinder, president for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The rub here is this: It’s likely that what transpired between the executives and Trump is perfectly legal. It may not have risen to a solicitation of something of value directly in exchange for an official act. But determining whether it was as egregious as it seems, and examining how it may be permissible under current laws, would illuminate the gaping problems with them, Bookbinder noted.

“There’s a clear legislative purpose in determining what happened at the meeting,” Bookbinder said. If this really constituted “an attempt to link significant campaign contributions with specific policy promises,” Bookbinder continued, “that suggests a huge loophole that needs to be closed.”

Or, as Fred Wertheimer, the president of the watchdog group Democracy 21, told me, this episode “certainly looks like an offer of an exchange of policy for money.” Given that this was probably legal, Wertheimer added, Congress could “look at this as an example of what kind of corrupt campaign finance system exists today.”

Such a move could have second-order political effects. Republicans understand that when they use their power in Congress to kick up a lot of noise about something, it induces the media to make more of it than they otherwise might. Democrats could apply that lesson here.

Democrats could also highlight this affair as a clear indication of Trump’s broader priorities. This would entail pointing out that Trump has vowed to roll back Biden’s whole decarbonization agenda, meaning he’d cancel billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives fueling a manufacturing renaissance in green energy. This boom is happening in red areas, too: As Ron Brownstein reports, new Brookings Institution data shows that counties that backed Trump in 2020 are reaping outsize gains—including investments and jobs—from the transition to electric vehicles.

Yet Trump would like to see all this reversed, and he’s apparently dangling this before fossil fuel donors while demanding enormous campaign contributions from them. Making this all even more sordid, recall that Trump is channeling millions in donor money to high-priced lawyers who are defending him against multiple criminal prosecutions.

“Hundreds of thousands of good clean energy jobs have been announced, and whole communities are being revitalized as factories are being rebuilt,” Jesse Lee, a Democratic strategist who advises various climate groups, told me. “Trump is promising to crush it all in exchange for a $1 billion check from oil companies to pay his legal fees.” Trump also recently promised billionaire donors he’d keep their taxes low at another recent gala.

As The Atlantic’s David Graham details, Trump has long presented himself as an outsider—despite being a billionaire himself—by purporting to speak traitor-to-his-class blunt truths about how the rich buy politicians. This was always a transparent scam. Yet it seems even harder to sustain now that Trump has apparently placed himself at the center of that very same scam so conspicuously, making his own corrupt self-dealing as explicit as one could imagine.

If elected, Trump would throw into reverse our transition to a decarbonized future, one that’s creating untold numbers of manufacturing jobs—including in the very places that Trump has attacked Democratic elites for supposedly abandoning—all in exchange for mega-checks from chortling fat cats right out of the most garish of Gilded Age cartoons. For good measure, some of that loot could help Trump secure elite impunity for his own corruption and alleged crimes. We can’t say we weren’t warned. Trump has told us all this himself.

[homersapien 11,513]

If true, this is a huge political opportunity for Democrats. They need to confirm it by starting an investigation ASAP to verify it. 

(And - assuming attempted bribery is a crime - the Justice Department as well.)

[Cardin Drake 1,893]

Sounds about right. Let's try to criminalize somebody's campaign promise to oppose Biden's plan to end fossil fuels.  And gosh, why would oil companies want to contribute to somebody who opposes the plan to end fossil fuels? 

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

36 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Sounds about right. Let's try to criminalize somebody's campaign promise to oppose Biden's plan to end fossil fuels.  And gosh, why would oil companies want to contribute to somebody who opposes the plan to end fossil fuels? 

If Trump does it, it must be illegal and impeachable.  End of story.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If Trump does it, it must be illegal and impeachable.  End of story.

You’re his most reliable defender. I think you’re in love.

[auburnatl1 5,253]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re his most reliable defender. I think you’re in love.

[Cardin Drake 1,893]

We are turning into a 3rd world political system. Idiots suggesting we should criminalize opposition to the regime and we have lunatics cheering them on.  Should you succeed, you aren't going to like the system you are installing, 

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re his most reliable defender. I think you’re in love.

It must eat your shorts to realize none of the law fare is working out as planned.

Edited May 12 by I_M4_AU

[homersapien 11,513]

12 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

We are turning into a 3rd world political system. Idiots suggesting we should criminalize opposition to the regime and we have lunatics cheering them on.  Should you succeed, you aren't going to like the system you are installing, 

Irony.

3rd world is having a president who considers himself above the law.

[homersapien 11,513]

If you haven't seen it, here's the WAPO article:

What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign

Donald Trump has pledged to scrap President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy, as well as other initiatives opposed by the fossil fuel industry.

By Josh Dawsey and Maxine Joselow

Updated May 9, 2024

 

As Donald Trump sat with some of the country’s top oil executives at his Mar-a-Lago Club last month, one executive complained about how they continued to face burdensome environmental regulations despite spending $400 million to lobby the Biden administration in the last year.

Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people.

Trump’s remarkably blunt and transactional pitch reveals how the former president is targeting the oil industry to finance his reelection bid. At the same time, he has turned to the industry to help shape his environmental agenda for a second term, including rollbacks of some of Biden’s signature achievements on clean energy and electric vehicles.

The contrast between the two candidates on climate policy could not be more stark. Biden has called global warming an “existential threat,” and over the last three years, his administration has finalized more than 100 new environmental regulations aimed at cutting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, restricting toxic chemicals, and conserving public lands and waters. In comparison, Trump has called climate change a “hoax,” and his administration weakened or wiped out more than 125 environmental rules and policies over four years.

In recent months, the Biden administration has raced to overturn Trump’s environmental actions and issue new ones before the November election. So far, Biden officials have overturned 27 Trump actions affecting the fossil fuel industry and completed at least 24 new actions affecting the sector, according to a Washington Post analysis. The Interior Department, for instance, recently blocked future oil drilling across 13 million acres of the Alaskan Arctic.

Despite the oil industry’s complaints about Biden’s policies, the United States is now producing more oil than any country ever has, pumping nearly 13 million barrels per day on average last year. ExxonMobil and Chevron, the largest U.S. energy companies, reported their biggest annual profits in a decade last year.

Yet oil giants will see an even greater windfall — helped by new offshore drilling, speedier permits and other relaxed regulations — in a second Trump administration, the former president told the executives over the dinner of chopped steak at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump vowed at the dinner to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports — a top priority for the executives, according to three people present. “You’ll get it on the first day,” Trump said, according to the recollection of an attendee.

The roughly two dozen executives invited included Mike Sabel, the CEO and founder of Venture Global, and Jack Fusco, the CEO of Cheniere Energy, whose proposed projects would directly benefit from lifting the pause on new LNG exports. Other attendees came from companies including Chevron, Continental Resources, Exxon and Occidental Petroleum, according to an attendance list obtained by The Post.

Trump told the executives that he would start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a priority that several of the executives raised. He railed against wind power, as The Post previously reported. And he said he would reverse the restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.

“You’ve been waiting on a permit for five years; you’ll get it on Day 1,” Trump told the executives, according to the recollection of the attendee.

At the dinner, Trump also promised that he would scrap Biden’s “mandate” on electric vehicles — mischaracterizing ambitious rules that the Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized, according to people who attended. The rules require automakers to reduce emissions from car tailpipes, but they don’t mandate a particular technology such as EVs. Trump called the rules “ridiculous” in the meeting with donors.

The fossil fuel industry has aggressively lobbied against the EPA’s tailpipe rules, which could eat into demand for its petroleum products. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, an industry trade group, has launched a seven-figure campaign against what it calls a de facto “gas car ban.” The campaign includes ads in battleground states warning that the rule will restrict consumer choice.

“Clearly, if you are producing gasoline and diesel, you want to make sure that there’s enough market there,” said Stephen Brown, an energy

don’t know that the oil industry would walk in united with a set of asks for the Trump administration, but I think it’s important for this issue to get raised.”

Although the repeal of the EPA rule would benefit the fossil fuel industry, it would probably anger the auto industry, which has invested billions of dollars in the transition away from gasoline-powered cars. Many automakers are under increasing pressure to sell more EVs in Europe, which has tightened its own tailpipe emissions rules, and they are eager to avoid a patchwork of regulations around the globe.

“Automakers need some degree of regulatory certainty from government,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents Ford, General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota and other car companies.

“What has emerged instead is a wholesale repeal … and then reinstatement … and then repeal again of regulations every four or eight years,” Bozzella said in an email.

Biden’s EV policies have also sparked opposition in Republican-led rural states such as North Dakota, where there are far more oil pump jacks than charging stations. A key figure leading the Trump campaign’s development of its energy policy is North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), who has been talking extensively to oil donors and CEOs.

At a fundraiser on Saturday in Palm Beach, Fla., Burgum told donors that Trump would halt Biden’s “attack” on fossil fuels, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by The Post.

“What would be the No. 1 thing that President Trump could do on Day 1? It’s stop the hostile attack against all American energy, and I mean all,” Burgum said. “Whether it’s baseload electricity, whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, whether it’s ethanol, there is an attack on liquid fuels.”

Burgum also criticized the Biden administration’s policies on gas stoves and vehicles with internal combustion engines, claiming that they would prevent consumers from buying both technologies. While the Energy Department recently set new efficiency standards for gas stoves, they would not affect the stoves in people’s kitchens or those currently on the market.

“They’ve got some liberal idea about what products we need,” Burgum said. “You all need EV cars. You don’t need internal combustion. We’ll decide what kind of car you’re going to drive, and we’re going to regulate the other ones out of business. I mean, it’s just in every industry, not just in cars, not just in energy. They’re telling people what stoves you can buy. This is not America.”

The Biden campaign initially declined to comment for this article. After it was published, however, Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa said in a statement that “Donald Trump is selling out working families to Big Oil for campaign checks. It’s that simple.”

“It doesn’t matter to Trump that oil and gas companies charge working families and middle-class Americans whatever they want while raking in record profits — if Donald can cash a check, he’ll do what they say,” Moussa added.

Burgum — a possible contender to lead the Energy Department in a second Trump term — has pushed harder to address climate change than many other Republicans. He set a goal in 2021 for North Dakota — the third-largest oil-producing state — to become carbon-neutral by 2030. He has stressed, however, that the goal won’t be achieved via government mandates or the elimination of fossil fuels, and he has cultivated deep support among oil donors.

Despite Trump’s huge fundraising ask, oil donors and their allies have yet to donate hundreds of millions to his campaign. They have contributed more than $6.4 million to Trump’s joint fundraising committee in the first three months of this year, according to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power. Oil billionaire Harold Hamm and others are scheduling a fundraiser for Trump later this year, advisers said, where they expect large checks to flow to his bid to return to office.

One person involved in the industry said many oil executives wanted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or another Republican to challenge Biden. But now that Trump is the nominee, this person said, they are going to embrace his policies and give.

Dan Eberhart, chief executive of the oil-field services company Canary and a Trump donor, said the Republican onslaught of donations was not surprising.

“Biden constantly throws a wet blanket to the oil and gas industry,” Eberhart said. “Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ philosophy aligns much better with the oil patch than Biden’s green-energy approach. It’s a no-brainer.”

Alex Witt, a senior adviser for oil and gas with Climate Power, said Trump’s promise is he will do whatever the oil industry wants if they support him. With Trump, Witt said, “everything has a price.”

“They got a great return on their investment during Trump’s first term, and Trump is making it crystal clear that they’re in for an even bigger payout if he’s reelected,” she said.

====================================================

Given the context there's nothing illegal about it (as I question in an earlier post).  It's just blatantly transactional and morally/ethically revealing.  (But then we already knew that about Trump.)

But I stand by my comment that this is a political gift for the Democrats. 

I hope it becomes a core campaign issue - right alongside the threat to democracy and women's personal rights to reproductive freedom.

I welcome it. 

 

 

Edited May 12 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

But I stand by my comment that this is a political gift for the Democrats. 

Know you have been disappointed many times. You know the saying. “A blind squirrel will eventually…………”

[homersapien 11,513]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Know you have been disappointed many times. You know the saying. “A blind squirrel will eventually…………”

That makes no sense whatsoever.  Are you suggesting this was not a  political blunder?

If so, why?

Edited May 13 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

That makes no sense whatsoever.  Are you suggesting this was not a  political blunder?

If so, why?

Doubt that it will hurt him. Was thinking more of the “criminal”  element you mentioned.

[creed 1,666]

Public display of a candidate and government for sale. If true, we're screwed.

[homersapien 11,513]

7 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Doubt that it will hurt him. Was thinking more of the “criminal”  element you mentioned.

Oh, it obviously won't hurt him with the MAGAs who are deniers or don't care, but polling of the general populace suggests otherwise.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

 

Edited May 13 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,513]

6 hours ago, creed said:

Public display of a candidate and government for sale. If true, we're screwed.

That ship has sailed.

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Oh, it obviously won't hurt him with the MAGAs who are deniers or don't care, but polling of the general populace suggests otherwise.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

 

Deflecting from what you called bribery and maybe a DOJ investigation to a low priority voting issue. Good move Brother Homer.

[homersapien 11,513]

19 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Deflecting from what you called bribery and maybe a DOJ investigation to a low priority voting issue. Good move Brother Homer.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It is bribery. Our entire political system works on it.

And I am not deflecting on anything.  People understand what he did. He promised to eliminate environmental regulations in return for a billion dollars. People who are concerned about our environment (CO2) understand that. And if you believe the polls, that is a majority of Americans.

To MAGA's who think AGW is a hoax, it won't matter.  (As IM4's "like" to your post demonstrates.)

I don't know what's happening to you Salty.  Either you are evolving into more of a MAGA or you have a personal problem with me.

 

Edited May 14 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 17,100]

On 5/11/2024 at 7:05 PM, TexasTiger said:

You’re his most reliable defender. I think you’re in love.

he is worse than ol circle jerk who was banned. sometimes i think if you donate to the site you get a pass. well unless you screw up in the nest.

[aubiefifty 17,100]

18 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Deflecting from what you called bribery and maybe a DOJ investigation to a low priority voting issue. Good move Brother Homer.

you people have lost your mind. bribery is bribery unless it is YOUR guy. the man should be in prison. he starts trouble and pisses people off so they come after to him. what a piece of crap. and anyone who votes for him.

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

37 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

he is worse than ol circle jerk who was banned. sometimes i think if you donate to the site you get a pass. well unless you screw up in the nest.

Are you trying to get someone banned?  Are you trying to draw a connection to donating to this site and some kind of *pass* from the MODs of this site?  You have really gone off the deep end since you changed your gender to *Female*.

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. It is bribery. Our entire political system works on it.

And I am not deflecting on anything.  People understand what he did. He promised to eliminate environmental regulations in return for a billion dollars. People who are concerned about our environment (CO2) understand that. And if you believe the polls, that is a majority of Americans.

To MAGA's who think AGW is a hoax, it won't matter.  (As IM4's "like" to your post demonstrates.)

I don't know what's happening to you Salty.  Either you are evolving into more of a MAGA or you have a personal problem with me.

 

I am just saying if indeed “bribery” then bribery is the issue. Should alarming to more folks than just those with an interest in intent. I also said I doubt it will ever amount to anything.

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

you people have lost your mind.

Yep, down on the coast and just went for treatment. Thought about you

[aubiefifty 17,100]

6 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Yep, down on the coast and just went for treatment. Thought about you

well gummies help me with the extra pains chemo gives me but thanx for trying. i think you are probably a good guy sometimes..........huge and kisses saltster...........

[aubiefifty 17,100]

i also have chemo brain and yall know i have a small brain to begin with. it sux i can tell you but it is better than dying.......