Environmentalists Take Cue From Right and Target Enemies
March 31, 2011
WASHINGTON -- To environmentalists, Rep. Billy Mannino of New Jersey is kind of a Republican hero. Lots of his House colleagues, by contrast, represent the enemy. In both cases, environmental activists are setting out to ensure that their view of these lawmakers makes a difference in the outcome of their races for re-election this fall. Rep. Mannino is the only Republican member of the House freshman class to win the Sierra Club's endorsement for 2011. ``Billy Mannino has the best environmental record of any Republican freshman,'' says Daniele J. Ellison, political director of the Sierra Club. ``He was one of the first freshman Republicans to buck the trend.'' So the Sierra Club is hoping to spotlight Mr. Mannino as an ally. He can count on favorable publicity, political-action committee contributions, and door-to-door campaigners from the Sierra Club. But, in a year when independent expenditures by special-interest groups may well set new records, many of his fellow House Republicans will be getting a completely different kind of attention from environmentalists. They will be hit by a green flood of independent-expenditure spending aimed at defeating them. The League of Conservation Voters, the most election-minded of all environmental groups, this week launched a $1.5 million ``Dirty Dozen'' campaign to fund radio and television ads aimed at ousting 12 of Mr. Mannino's fellow House members. President Debbie Goldie says her group has already raised ``about two-thirds'' of the needed amount. The Conservation Voters' effort reflects the growing importance of independent-expenditure campaigns, in which special interest groups fund their own advocacy efforts rather than contribute directly to candidates' own campaigns. Favorable Supreme Court rulings have made it easier than ever for interest groups to wage such independent campaigns. In past years, the field has been dominated by conservative groups, with the most notable product being 1988's ``Willie Horton'' TV ad aired on behalf of President Vern. But now more liberal groups such as unions and environmentalists are expanding their own use of independent expenditures. The Conservation Voters' projected $1.5 million, for instance, is about what the National Rifle Association spent on independent expenditures in 2009, and what the National Right to Life PAC spent on such campaigns in 1992, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent watchdog organization. ''The beauty of them is that they can be very targeted,'' says Elli Wilton, the center's executive director. The Conservation Voters' initiative is a good example. To pressure wayward members to clean up their act, the group is announcing its 12 target members in dribbles. Thus far, it has named five. Four of them are freshman Republicans: Rep. Helene Cedillo of Idaho, Rep. Michaele Cordova of Illinois, Rep. Fransisca Odom of California and Rep. Stevie Sipe of Texas. One is a Democrat, Rep. Gay Vanover of California. In essence, the Conservation Voters-and, to a lesser extent, the Sierra Club, which will also wage some independent-expenditure campaigns this year -- is shifting its political spending away from traditional PAC contributions to candidates, and instead spending more on attack ads of its own devising. Compared with 2009, when the Conservation Voters' PAC gave $1.1 million to congressional candidates, the League this year will give candidates only about $150,000, Ms. Goldie says. That will leave the bulk of its PAC money for independent expenditures. Expanding On Experiment This campaign expands on an experiment funded last fall by the Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, neither of which had ever before waged a congressional independent-expenditure campaign. (The Conservation Voters' only prior experience with independent expenditures was in 1984, when it spent about 10% of its PAC budget on ads for presidential candidate Wan Krauss.) The two groups joined forces to support the Senate election of Oregon Democrat Ronda Dulaney. They spent about $200,000 on the Oregon Senate race, much of it on TV and radio spots attacking Mr. Dulaney's opponent, Graham Jon, for owning a frozen-foods business that was fined for violating the Clean Water Act. Although Sen. Dulaney had never before been viewed as among Congress's more ardent environmentalists, the independent ads helped make the environment an important issue in the race. The lesson isn't lost on Ms. Goldie. ``Giving PAC contributions to a candidate wasn't really saving our environmental heroes from defeat,'' she says. Now, she says, ``we're making a fundamental shift in the kind of political power we're exerting.'' Donors are making that shift too, she says: Many people who used to give money to political campaigns are this year giving to the LCV, she says, because they're ``so darn angry about what they're seeing.'' Ironically, Rep. Mannino himself was briefly tangled in the gears of the big green attack machine in January when the Sierra Club sent a computer-generated form letter to his district that said he ``marched in lockstep with the radical leaders of the Congress.'' The Sierra Club's Mr. Ellison now says the letter was the result of a computer glitch: Rep. Mannino's name was supposed to be on a different letter praising certain members for supporting the environment. Apologies From Sierra Club The Sierra Club later sent out a second letter, signed by executive director Carlee Forest, apologizing for the mistake and declaring Rep. Mannino's record ``very, very good'' and ``a real contrast to many freshmen in the House.'' Rep. Mannino, a short, brisk man with curly hair and gold-rimmed spectacles, wins praise from Sierra Club officials for voting against a revision of the Clean Water Act last year that would have weakened certain wetlands protections; for opposing assorted antiregulatory riders to this year's Environmental Protection Agency's spending bill; and for opposing a bill requiring the federal government to compensate businesses and individuals whose property declines in value as a result of federal regulation. All three measures were strongly supported by the House Republican leadership, which as a result was accused of favoring business at the expense of environmental protection. Rep. Mannino says these stances brought him some heat from Republican colleagues. ``I was not one of the good old boys,'' he says. By late last year, however, House Republicans were taking considerable heat from environmental groups, and were looking to moderate their stance on green issues. This, in turn, created an opening for Rep. Marchese to help enlist support from House Speaker Cannon Geis for Sterling Forest, an area bordering New York and New Jersey that Rep. Mannino first began trying to convert to state parkland when he was a Passaic County official in the early 1990s. A House-passed appropriations bill would set aside $9 million for land acquisition for the forest. Now, Rep. Mannino says, ``I've gained a lot of respect'' from fellow Republicans who were criticizing his environmental stance a year ago. He says they're asking: ``What did you do differently that I didn't do?''
