This morning, reacting to the news that the NO on I‑2117 coalition has raised over $11 million in early money, including from Bill Gates, Amazon, Microsoft, and BP, longtime KVI talk show host and Cascadia Advocate reader John Carlson urged his listeners to “hit back” by donating money to Brian Heywood’s Let’s Go Washington committee, which remains in the red due to Heywood’s decision last year to funnel money into the committee via loans instead of outright contributions.
“What can you do? You’re hearing this, you’re getting angry? What can you do about it? […] Make a contribution to the Initiative 2117 campaign… stop the hidden gas tax. Yes. I know that not a lot of people out there listening are gonna drop in a million dollars like Gates and some of the other tech executives. But you know what? A whole lot of people putting in small contributions can eventually reach that plateau. So, let’s get busy. Let’s hit back at the climate industrial government complex,” Carlson said after a segment with Todd Myers of the right wing Washington Policy Center, which Carlson was involved in founding many decades ago. (Both Carlson and Myers dislike the Climate Commitment Act and want to make it go away with I‑2117).
The big money brought in by the NO on I‑2117 campaign from big names is certainly getting plenty of media attention, and deservedly so. When the likes of Bill Gates write a million dollar check to a campaign, that’s a story. When our region’s largest corporations decide to get involved in a ballot measure campaign, that’s a story. We have public disclosure laws precisely so that the public can see who’s trying to influence them and secure their vote. And timely reporting allows the information that public disclosure laws require to be more widely and effectively disseminated to the voting public.
However, there’s more to this particular story than what we heard from Carlson this morning. There’s two dynamics in particular that I think are worth flagging.
First is the absence of money coming in to Let’s Go Washington to help sell I‑2117.
I’m getting the sense that the right wing is especially angry about the NO on I‑2117 fundraising haul because they don’t have their own haul to brag about. They qualified for the November ballot thanks to one rich guy: Brian Heywood. Now a bunch of other rich guys are coming in and opening their wallets to defeat I‑2117, whereas Heywood & Co. aren’t getting any deep-pocketed reinforcements. They may have expected that oil companies would come in and start writing checks — after all, in 2018, Big Oil spent over thirty million — that’s right, thirty million dollars! — to defeat Initiative 1631.
But that was then.
The Climate Commitment Act, unlike I‑1631, was proposed through the legislative process. Everyone who wanted to have a say in its drafting had that opportunity, including lobbyists working for big oil companies. And the resulting law is something they’d rather have than not have. It is a market-focused approach to fighting pollution over time which provides stability and predictability. So they’re not going to be helping Heywood and Walsh out. Quite the opposite. BP, for its part, wants I‑2117 defeated and is making funds available to the opposition to ensure that happens.
Momentum shifts are an important facet of politics. Brian Heywood and Jim Walsh and their side have been rolling along, thanks in large part to Heywood’s checks, for many months. They were able to overcome major problems plaguing their six-measure paid signature drive and qualify. Then the Legislature decided to adopt half their slate into law for strategic reasons. They had opportunities to take several victory laps, and did.
But now the momentum is shifting to the opposition campaigns. Our side is doing a ton of organizing to ensure these measures get the vigorous opposition they deserve, and working on building the biggest, broadest, best possible NO campaigns. Carlson can see it and feel it. So can anyone tracking I‑2117 and its brethren I‑2109 and I‑2124.
When GeekWire reported on Amazon and Microsoft’s involvement in the NO on I‑2117 campaign, reporter Lisa Stiffler reached out to Let’s Go Washington’s Hallie Balch with some questions. One of those questions was: where’s your list of endorsers and coalition partners? Balch came back with this, as reported by Stiffler for GeekWire:
When asked about the initiative’s supporters and donors, Balch said by email: “We don’t have an official list of big corporation or billion-dollar sponsors because the people of Washington state are the supporters.”
That’s what you say, I guess, when you haven’t been putting in the work of building a strong coalition with lots of partners to achieve your desired objective. When you’re just coasting along thinking the signatures your paid petitioners collected are sufficient.
Washington is a big state with over seven million people and over four million voters — reaching millions of people is logistically complex. It helps to have resources and partners to do that outreach.
I’ve worked for and against statewide ballot measures in Washington State for most of my life. Ballot measure strategy is one of my foremost areas of expertise. I consider the importance of coalition-building in a ballot measure campaign to be paramount. A campaign has a much better chance of succeeding when it is inclusive and broad-based.
That brings me to the second dynamic I think is worth taking note of.
The following are a set of statistics put together by the NO on I‑2117 coalition staff which speak to the campaign’s aspiration to be broad-based and inclusive. Carlson talked about matching big money with small dollar contributions… but our side already has those, too. The campaign isn’t just raising money from Bill Gates, Microsoft, Amazon, or other well known names; it has grassroots support as well. Take a look:
- Over 100: Number of Washington organizations endorsing No on 2117
- Over $11M: Amount raised or pledged to defeat I‑2117
- Over 1,300: Number of grassroots donors to No on 2117
- 95: Percent of No on 2117 donors contributing $100 or less
And it’s only April! We have half a year to increase these numbers.
I’ve been part of statewide campaigns that ended the cycle with only a fraction of the money and endorsements and support that NO on I‑2117 already has. This is a very, very promising start. And the campaign has so much potential. This is a fabulous opportunity to bring Washingtonians together in defense of the values that make our state great, particularly freedom, empathy, mutual responsibility, and protection.
We all deserve to live in a place with clean air, clean water, and clean soil. We all deserve to be free from costly, cancer-causing pollution. We all deserve to live in a place with laws that safeguard what makes the Pacific Northwest the Pacific Northwest. Our snowpack, our orcas, our salmon, our wildlife, our way of life… all are at stake! When we’re done borrowing the planet from future generations, what will our legacy be?
There is no policy we can adopt that will instantaneously reverse centuries of environmental and climate damage we caused by burning fossil fuels. But in passing the Climate Commitment Act, our elected representatives took a major step towards getting us on the path to a clean energy future. How we get there matters. The strategy we’ve chosen affords us the opportunity to address other societal problems such as income inequality and lack of housing while we tackle the climate crisis.
Climate Commitment Act dollars are already making it possible for young people in Washington to ride transit without paying a fare. They’re making it possible for school districts to purchase electric school buses that don’t belch emissions. They’re making it possible for cities to plant more trees to reduce the impact of dangerous heat waves. They’re helping rural communities invest in solar and wind energy.
In its most recent budget, the Legislature approved direct assistance for low income utility ratepayers, appropriating $157 million in CCA funds for $200 electric utility rebates to be distributed to 750,000 low and medium income households beginning this autumn.
Those are all examples of the Climate Commitment Act in action.
See more by visiting climate.wa.gov and opening the project map.
Brian Heywood, Jim Walsh, John Carlson & Co. want to repeal the Climate Commitment Act and replace it with… nothing. Irresponsibly, they don’t have an alternative climate action plan. If you ask them for one, they’ll pivot to criticizing the CCA or saying something else, because despite Heywood’s claim that they agree with their friends on the left that polluters shouldn’t get off scot-free, they don’t favor any policies that would put a price on pollution or phase out fossil fuels.
Their position is at odds with the values this state was founded upon. It’s also not a position our research suggests most Washingtonians agree with. For years, we’ve been asking Washingtonians about their support for climate action laws. No matter how we phrase our questions, we always find a majority that are supportive. A majority of Washingtonians are even willing to put up with higher prices for gasoline and home heating fuel to have strong climate action laws. In the end, what matters to most Evergreen State voters is not how cheap regular unleaded is, but what we do to take care of each other and this great green land that has appropriately been dubbed Cascadia.